You are here: / / Exclusive Access Not Required for Constructive Possession

Exclusive Access Not Required for Constructive Possession

The Third Department determined the proof of constructive possession of a weapon was sufficient.  The gun was found in a boot outside the door to the apartment where defendant lived.  He had been seen entering the building with a gun. The court noted that exclusive access to the area where contraband is found is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession:

Constructive possession can be established by evidence that the defendant had dominion and control over the weapon or the area in which it was found … . Exclusive access, however, is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession … . Here, the People established that defendant resided in the first-floor apartment with his girlfriend and their young son, and the loaded handgun was found in a man’s boot located in a hallway leading to that apartment among shoes belonging to defendant’s girlfriend and his son. The only other tenant in the building was an elderly woman who lived on the second floor. Although defendant denied ownership of the boots, he admitted that he kept some of his belongings in the hallway, and the People established the presence of his DNA on the weapon. The rational inferences to be drawn from this evidence are sufficient to support the conclusion that defendant exercised dominion and control over the weapon and the area in which it was found … . People v Bellamy, 2014 NY Slip Op 04262, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

You might also like
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S ALLEGED BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO THE VERDICT; THE ALLEGED BEHAVIOR WAS NOT SO WRONGFUL OR PERVASIVE AS TO JUSTIFY SETTING ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT FOR THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD HAD THE CAPACITY TO TESTIFY; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Employer Did Not Exercise Sufficient Control over Claimant’s Work—Finding that Claimant Was an Employee Was Not Supported
Lyme-Disease Disabilities Recognized
Attack on Plaintiff Upon Leaving Defendant-Lodge’s Premises Not Foreseeable—Landowner Had No Duty to Take Measures to Protect Against the Attack—Evidence Lodge Is Located in a “High Crime” Area Insufficient to Render Such an Attack Foreseeable
DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED.

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

Plaintiffs in Lead-Paint Exposure Cases Are Not Required to Hire an Expert to... A Counteroffer Extinguishes the Initial Offer Which Cannot Be Unilaterally Revived...