| People v Primakov |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02902 [105 AD3d 1397] |
| April 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v PavelPrimakov, Appellant. |
—[*1] Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Erin Tubbs of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti,J.), rendered October 14, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict,of criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree, burglary in the third degree andcriminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a juryverdict of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree (Penal Law§ 265.04 [2]) arising out of an incident in which defendant and his accompliceburglarized a gun shop and stole a number of guns. We note that defendant was indictedfor that crime as both a principal and an accomplice (see § 20.00).Following the burglary, defendant and his accomplice fled by foot over snow-coveredground. The police apprehended them separately some distance from the crime scene.
Defendant contends that his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in thefirst degree is not based on legally sufficient evidence because the People failed toestablish that he possessed the requisite 10 or more firearms (see Penal Law§ 265.04 [2]). We reject that contention. The proof establishes that 16 guns werestolen during the burglary and that 13 of those guns qualified as "firearms" inasmuch asthey were pistols or revolvers (see § 265.00 [3]). Contrary to defendant'scontention, the fact that he did not personally possess 10 or more of the firearms at thetime he was apprehended does not render the evidence legally insufficient to support theconviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree. The record establishesthat the 13 firearms removed from the gun shop were found in the possession ofdefendant or his accomplice, were recovered in their immediate vicinity at the time theywere arrested, or were recovered along the route that one or both of them took in fleeingfrom the gun shop. Thus, there was a "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferenceswhich could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis ofthe evidence at trial" (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; see generally People v Mateo,13 AD3d 987, 988 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 883 [2005]). Contrary todefendant's further contention, viewing the evidence in light of the element of the crimeof criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict with respect to that [*2]crime is not against the weight of the evidence (seegenerally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Finally, we have considered defendant'sremaining contentions and conclude that none requires reversal or modification of thejudgment. Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.