People v Diaz
Annotate this Case[*1] The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
David Diaz, Appellant.
Decided July 1, 2010
People v Diaz, 68 AD3d 642, affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
David Segal, New York City, for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Malancha Chanda and Eleanor Ostrow of counsel), for respondent.
{**15 NY3d at 765} OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the trial evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to infer both that defendant [*2]exercised dominion and control over the van from which police recovered over four ounces of crack cocaine, and that defendant had knowledge that the drugs were secreted in a hidden compartment beneath the van's air bag cover (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]). Defendant's knowledge could be inferred from his sole possession of the van at the time the contraband was seized, his{**15 NY3d at 766} possession of nine unused crack pipes in the van's glove compartment, and his inconsistent and implausible accounts of his relationship to the van (People v Reisman, 29 NY2d 278, 285 [1971] ["Knowledge (of the presence of illegal drugs) may be shown circumstantially by conduct or directly by admission, or indirectly by contradictory statements from which guilt may be inferred"]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
