[*1]
People v Dozier (Kevin)
2006 NY Slip Op 50926(U) [12 Misc 3d 128(A)]
Decided on May 18, 2006
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on May 18, 2006
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Davis, J.P., Gangel-Jacob, Schoenfeld, JJ
570222/04

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Kevin Dozier, Defendant - Appellant.


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), rendered November 20, 2004, after a jury trial, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana and resisting arrest, and imposing sentence.


PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction (Barbara Jaffe, J.), rendered November 20, 2004, affirmed.

Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The police, as custodians of the City-owned, "trespass affidavit" building known for its drug activity (see People v Williams, 16 AD3d 151 [2005]), lv denied 5 NY3d 771 [2005]), were justified in following the defendant while he remained in the building's common areas in order to legitimately exercise their right to request information as to his presence (see generally People v Anderson, 306 AD2d 54 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 578 [2003]; People v Tinori, 272 AD2d 206 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 872 [2000]). The defendant's conduct in voluntarily discarding several plastic bags of marihuana in a building stairwell provided probable cause for his arrest.

Defendant's conviction of resisting arrest was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, which shows that defendant, after discarding the marihuana, refused to comply with the uniformed officer's repeated, lawful commands to stop (see People v Bell, 265 AD2d 813 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 916 [2000]).

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining argument.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: May 18, 2006