| People v Mustafa |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01343 [114 AD3d 966] |
| February 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hasan Mustafa, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Latella, J.), rendered February 3, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the thirddegree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso,J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physicalevidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of all the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004],cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to allthe crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established a sufficient chain ofcustody of certain drugs recovered from the defendant and another individual, and thePeople's evidence provided reasonable assurances of the identity and unchangedcondition of the evidence between its recovery and the trial (see People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 494 [2008]; People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 343 [1977]; People v Thomas, 92 AD3d1084, 1086 [2012]; Matter of Kassan D., 287 AD2d 564, 564-565 [2001];People v Piazza, 121 AD2d 573, 574 [1986]). Any deficiencies in the chain ofcustody went only to the weight to be accorded the evidence, not its admissibility (seePeople v Hawkins, 11 NY3d at 494; People v Julian, 41 NY2d at 343; People v Bain, 85 AD3d1193, 1194 [2011]; People v Delgado, 187 AD2d 447, 447-448 [1992]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress physical evidence.
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel during his pretrial[*2]Mapp hearing (see Mapp v Ohio, 367US 643 [1961]), as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d143, 155-156 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Elamin, 82 AD3d1664, 1665 [2011]; cf.People v Clermont, 22 NY3d 931 [2013]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.