Opinion
June 7, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the pretrial encounter between one of the police officers and the defendant was not a police arranged confrontation but rather a mere happenstance unoccasioned by law enforcement officials, suppression of the officer's identification testimony was properly denied (see, People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 193, cert denied 369 U.S. 1020; People v. Boyd, 161 A.D.2d 719; People v. Decker, 134 A.D.2d 511; People v. Bookhart, 117 A.D.2d 739).
Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the trial court was correct in applying the statutory presumption of possession pursuant to Penal Law § 220.25 (2) as the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant, who was apprehended in the living room, was in close proximity to the narcotics found in open view in the bedroom and that the narcotics were being packaged for future distribution (see, People v. Riddick, 159 A.D.2d 596; People v. Garcia, 156 A.D.2d 710; People v. Alexander, 152 A.D.2d 587; People v. Shakes, 150 A.D.2d 401).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.