| People v Padilla |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07930 [89 AD3d 505] |
| November 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kenneth Padilla, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Matthew T. Murphy of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J., at hearing; Wayne M.Ozzi, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 8, 2010, convicting defendant ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violentfelony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a revolver recovered from hisimpounded car. The police conducted a proper inventory search, which was supported bysufficient documentation. The search produced a "meaningful inventory list" (People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 252,256 [2003]), even though the searching officer did not record every item he released todefendant's sister (see People v Black, 250 AD2d 494 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d922 [1998]), and we do not find there were any deficiencies of any kind that would warrantsuppression of the revolver. Regardless of whether the officer suspected that contraband might bepresent, there was no evidence that the search was conducted as a ruse to discover incriminatingevidence (see Johnson, 1 NY3d at 256). Defendant did not preserve his argument that thepolice improperly impounded his car, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As analternate holding, we reject it on the merits.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), particularly when viewed in light of the statutory presumptionof possession by all occupants of a vehicle (see Penal Law § 265.15 [3]).Moreover, defendant was the owner, driver, and sole occupant, and the evidence, even withoutthe automobile presumption, warrants the inference that he knew there was a firearm in his car(see People v Reisman, 29 NY2d 278, 285-286 [1971], cert denied 405 US 1041[1972]).[*2]
Defendant's remaining claims do not warrant reversal.Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and RomÁn, JJ.