Opinion
October 16, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leshe Crocker Snyder, J.).
Expert testimony concerning the practices of narcotics distributors and the interpretation of certain records was properly received under the circumstances ( see, People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430). By expressing an opinion as to the likelihood that nonparticipants in a drug operation would be permitted access to its packaging site, the People's expert did not invade the jury's province by conveying conclusions on ultimate issues of fact. Defendant's remaining challenges to testimony given by the expert are unpreserved and without merit ( see, People v. Espinal, 174 A.D.2d 500, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 826).
The court properly submitted the "room presumption" to the jury. The People relied on police testimony that the drugs and drug paraphernalia were in open view and it was not necessary for the jury to inspect the actual evidence in determining that it was in open view. Since it was established that the drugs were in "open view", and that defendant was in "close proximity" to them (Penal Law § 220.25), the People were under no additional obligation to prove that defendant actually saw them or was in the same room with them ( People v. Maldonado, 189 A.D.2d 737, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1016).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.