| People v Gillyard |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00984 [70 AD3d 854] |
| February 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hayward Gillyard, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.),rendered April 30, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant toCPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]). The People's evidence established that the defendant sold two glassineenvelopes containing heroin to an apprehended buyer (see People v Wright, 62 AD3d 916 [2009]; People v Gunney, 13 AD3d 980[2004]; People v Morales, 309 AD2d 621 [2003]; cf. People v Ford, 20 AD3d 816 [2005]), and possessed anadditional 10 glassine envelopes containing heroin with the intent to sell (see People vRivera-Lugo, 202 AD2d 333 [1994]; People v Cruz, 197 AD2d 630 [1993];People v Nickens, 121 AD2d 199 [1986]). Although the contents of only two of theenvelopes recovered from the defendant were tested for a controlled substance, the jury couldreasonably infer from the positive results of those tests that the remaining envelopes, which wererecovered from the defendant at the same time, also contained a controlled substance since theuntested envelopes bore the same stamp as those envelopes which tested positive for heroin, andthe contents of all the envelopes appeared to be similar in nature (see People v McGriff,201 AD2d 672 [1994]; People v Wilcox, 198 AD2d 544, 545 [1993]).
Further, the defendant's allegation that the trial court erred in denying his request for acharge on prior inconsistent statements is without merit. The general credibility instruction givenby the court was sufficient (see People v McIlwain, 205 AD2d 710 [1994]; People vGamble, 182 AD2d 638 [1992]; People v Pridgen, 171 AD2d 763 [1991]; Peoplev Butts, 139 AD2d 660 [1988]). Dillon, J.P., Covello, Miller and Chambers, JJ., concur.