| People v Aziziandavidi |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07682 [100 AD3d 765] |
| November 14, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SosanAziziandavidi, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, Brooke E. Barnes, and Rona Kugler of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.),rendered October 30, 2009, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thefirst degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in permitting the People to elicittestimony that the narcotics found in the lining of the suitcases she was carrying could beconverted into heroin is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Torres, 96 AD3d 881[2012]; People v Jones, 9 AD3d374, 375 [2004]). However, we reach the issue pursuant to our interest of justicejurisdiction. Although evidence is relevant if it tends to prove the existence or nonexistence of amaterial fact, not all relevant evidence is admissible (see People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351,355 [2001]). A court has the discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value isoutweighed by risks such as "undue prejudice to the opposing party, confusing the issues ormisleading the jury" (id. at 355). "Evidence 'of merely slight, remote or conjecturalsignificance' will ordinarily be insufficiently probative to outweigh these countervailing risks"(id. at 355-356, quoting People v Feldman, 299 NY 153, 169-170 [1949]).Contrary to the People's contention, the testimony that the 32 pounds of narcotics found in thesuitcases could be converted into heroin, as well as the additional testimony that the street valueof the narcotics would be approximately $4.5 million if so converted, was of insufficientprobative significance in proving the elements of knowing possession (see Penal Law§ 220.21 [1]) and intent to sell (see Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) to outweigh theprejudicial impact of the admission of this evidence to the defendant (People v Primo, 96NY2d 351, 355 [2001]; see People v Figueroa, 211 AD2d 811 [1995]; People vJones, 201 AD2d 505 [1994]; People v Rodriguez, 184 AD2d 795 [1992]; Peoplev Stevenson, 179 AD2d 832 [1992]). The prosecutor's reference to such evidence duringsummation was improper as well (seePeople v Tucker, 87 AD3d 1077, 1081 [2011]; People v Wilkinson, 71 AD3d 249, 257 [2010]; People vFigueroa, 211 AD2d 811 [1995]).
Although the defendant's contention that reversal is required because the prosecutor referredto the defendant as a "player" in the "game" of international heroin trafficking is [*2]unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; People v Gill, 54 AD3d 965, 966 [2008]; People v Norman, 40 AD3d 1130,1131 [2007]), we also reach this issue pursuant to our interest of justice jurisdiction. Suchcomments were improper (see People v Brown, 223 AD2d 597, 597-598 [1996];People v Rivera, 178 AD2d 620, 621 [1991]). Nevertheless, the errors were harmless, asthere was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that theerrors contributed to her conviction (seePeople v Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 467 [2009]; People v Mack, 91 AD3d 794, 796 [2012]; People vBrown, 285 AD2d 472 [2001]; People v Clausell, 223 AD2d 598 [1996]).
Furthermore, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as therecord reveals that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).Eng, P.J., Florio, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.