Opinion
June 24, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence adduced at the trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's knowing possession of the cocaine in question beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 220.25). The evidence demonstrated that when the police entered the curtained-off room where the defendant and her codefendants were found, the table around which they sat held a triple-beam scale with cocaine on it, as well as plastic bags and vials, some of which had been filled with the drug. This evidence established the defendant's close proximity to drugs and related packaging paraphernalia open to view in a room other than a public place, such that the defendant is presumed by statute to have knowingly possessed them (see, Penal Law § 220.25; People v Riddick, 159 A.D.2d 596; People v Alexander, 152 A.D.2d 587). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15; People v Torres, 158 A.D.2d 730, 731).
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its Sandoval ruling permitting the People to inquire into whether or not the defendant had ever been convicted of a felony (see, People v Aguilera, 156 A.D.2d 698, 699). By not permitting inquiry into the facts of the defendant's prior drug sale conviction, unless the defendant chose to deny the fact of her prior felony, the court struck a fair balance between avoiding prejudice to the defendant while permitting the People to test the defendant's credibility (see, People v Garvey, 115 A.D.2d 618).
Having failed to alert the trial court in a timely manner of her contention that the undercover police officer was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case, the defendant waived her claim that the court should have delivered a missing witness charge with regard to this individual.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.