You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN “CLOSE PROXIMITY” TO THE DRUGS WITHIN...
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN “CLOSE PROXIMITY” TO THE DRUGS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “ROOM” OR “DRUG FACTORY” PRESUMPTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s possession-of-drugs convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the “room” or “drug factory” presumption was not applicable:

… [S]ection 220.25 (2) provides that “[t]he presence of a narcotic drug . . . in open view in a room . . . under circumstances evincing an intent to unlawfully mix, compound, package or otherwise prepare for sale such controlled substance is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in close proximity to such controlled substance at the time such controlled substance was found.” “Penal statutes ‘must be construed according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of the law’ ” … . The drug factory presumption is “intended to allow police in the field to identify potentially culpable individuals involved in a drug business, under circumstances that demonstrate those individuals’ participation in a drug operation” … . According to its drafters, the presumption is “designed to remedy that situation wherein police execute a search warrant on a premises suspected of being a ‘drug factory,’ only to find dangerous drugs and/or drug paraphernalia scattered about the room. The occupants of such ‘factories,’ who moments before were diluting or packaging the drugs, usually proclaim their innocence and disclaim ownership of, or any connection with, the materials spread before them. Police, under such circumstances, are often uncertain as to whom to arrest. In addition, with the present burden of proof of knowing possession of dangerous drugs on the [P]eople, successful prosecution of persons other than the owner or lessee of such premises is extremely rare” … . …

… [T]he phrase “close proximity” in Penal Law § 220.25 (2) means “when the defendant is sufficiently near the drugs so as to evince defendant’s participation in an apparent drug sales operation, thus supporting a presumption of defendant’s knowing possession” … . “[T]he proximity determination requires careful consideration of the underlying facts related to defendant’s location on the premises” … . Thus, a defendant need not be apprehended within the same room as the drugs in order to satisfy the element of “close proximity” … , and the presumption applies to a defendant caught while trying to flee the premises upon the sudden entry by police … .  …

… [D]efendant was not apprehended in close proximity to the drugs as contemplated by the drug factory presumption, i.e., he was not “sufficiently near the drugs so as to evince defendant’s participation in an apparent drug sales operation, thus supporting a presumption of defendant’s knowing possession” … . Defendant was not apprehended in the room with the drugs, he was not apprehended fleeing from that room, and he was not apprehended within or outside of the home while attempting to hide from police. Thus, he was not apprehended under circumstances suggesting that he had, just “moments before,” been engaged in drug distillation or packaging … . People v Campbell, 2024 NY Slip Op 03995, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the “room” or “drug factory” presumption re: the possession of drugs.​

 

You might also like
Statement Identifying Shooter Made by a Witness Who Did Not See the Shooting Should Not Have Been Admitted Under the Present Sense Impression Exception to the Hearsay Rule
HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION AND TO WHOM RESTITUTION SHOULD BE PAID; UNPRESERVED ERRORS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF PROPERTIES WHERE THE OWNER DOES NOT RESIDE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A REGULATORY TAKING (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF THE MOTORCYCLE, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).
WHEN A WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO HIM BY THE POLICE IS DEEMED “CONFIRMATORY,” THAT CONCLUSION IS TANTAMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE POLICE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS NOT SUGGESTIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE WITNESS KNEW THE DEFENDANT WELL; HERE THE PROOF THE IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
RESCISSION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE THE PARTIES CANNOT BE RETURNED TO THE STATUS QUO; A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED IF DAMAGES ARE NOT ESTABLISHED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE THE PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
Reversible Error to Instruct the Jury On an Affirmative Defense Over Defense Counsel’s Objection

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF, IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SEXUAL ABUSE ACTION, PROPERLY ASSERTED... WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXCESS COVERAGE POLICIES COVERING THE SAME RISK, THE...