| People v Ramirez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06559 [15 NY3d 824] |
| September 16, 2010 |
| Court of Appeals |
| As corrected through Wednesday, November 3, 2010 |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timoteo Ramirez, Appellant. |
Decided September 16, 2010
People v Ramirez, 60 AD3d 560, affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, LLP, Ithaca (Diane V. Bruns of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Grace Vee of counsel), for respondent.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Contrary to defendant's argument, the Appellate Division properly concluded that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant constructively [*2]possessed the drugs and drug paraphernalia located in an apartment in which defendant himself was found (see generally People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).
Moreover, although the record is silent as to whether Supreme Court showed the jury note to counsel as required in{**15 NY3d at 826} People v O'Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]), defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court's response, and failed to object at that time, when the error could have been cured. Accordingly, defendant's claim is unpreserved for review (see People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see also People v Kadarko, 14 NY3d 426, 429-430 [2010]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.