Opinion
2013-04-11
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kasien ADDERLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
Darius Wadia, L.L.C., New York (Julia E. Burke of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Malancha Chanda of counsel), for respondent.
Darius Wadia, L.L.C., New York (Julia E. Burke of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Malancha Chanda of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, ABDUS–SALAAM, ROMÁN, CLARK, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J. at suppression hearing; Ruth Pickholz, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 12, 2011, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress money he discarded while fleeing from the police. When the observing officer communicated to the arresting officer that someone was running in the latter's direction, the only reasonable inference, given the surrounding context, was that the running person had just participated in a drug transaction ( see People v. Vestal, 270 A.D.2d 92, 705 N.Y.S.2d 37 [1st Dept. 2000], lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 805, 711 N.Y.S.2d 174, 733 N.E.2d 246 [2000];People v. Fisher, 270 A.D.2d 90, 704 N.Y.S.2d 246 [1st Dept. 2000], lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 796, 711 N.Y.S.2d 164, 733 N.E.2d 236 [2000] ). Accordingly, the arresting officer, who had positioned himself to apprehend anyone who ran from the scene, properly acted under the fellow officer rule when he pursued defendant, who was the only person running.
The People provided reasonable assurances as to the identity and unchanged condition of the drugs seized from a codefendant,and the absence of testimony from the chemist who initially tested the drugs went only to the weight to be accorded the evidence, not its admissibility ( see People v. Miller, 209 A.D.2d 187, 188, 618 N.Y.S.2d 279 [1st Dept. 1994], affd.85 N.Y.2d 962, 629 N.Y.S.2d 720, 653 N.E.2d 616 [1995] ). Any discrepancies as to the color, form or weight measurement of the drugs were insignificant or were sufficiently explained by the chemist who retested the drugs, and these discrepancies likewise went to weight rather than admissibility ( see People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310 [1977];People v. White, 40 N.Y.2d 797, 799–800, 390 N.Y.S.2d 405, 358 N.E.2d 1031 [1976] ).