Opinion
December 20, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We have reviewed the Grand Jury testimony and find that the integrity of the Grand Jury was in no way impaired by the People's presentation of evidence. The defendant's claim that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury resulting in his indictment was legally insufficient, is not reviewable on his appeal from the ensuing judgment of conviction (see, CPL 210.30; see, People v Cunningham, 163 A.D.2d 412; cf., People v Alexander, 136 A.D.2d 332).
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant unlawfully possessed the weapon. Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, as this was both a direct and circumstantial evidence case, the "moral certainty" standard does not apply (see generally, People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375).
We find that the People established a sufficient nexus connecting the defendant to the gun which was the subject of his evidentiary objection (see generally, People v Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340). Significantly, the gun was recovered in the location where an unidentified object was observed to have been thrown from the defendant's car as he was fleeing from the police. Moreover, the People's witness identified the gun as the one carried by the defendant's unapprehended accomplice. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.