In this drug possession case, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
According to a Suffolk County Criminal attorney, the court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the Court found that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was found standing in close proximity to a table containing approximately four ounces of cocaine, at least some of which was in open view. Also present in the room were aluminum foil, a scale, and a spoon.
A Suffolk County drug possession lawyer said that when narcotics are found in open view in a room other than a public place, under circumstances evincing intent to unlawfully mix, package, or otherwise prepare them for sale, every person in close proximity to the narcotics at the time of their discovery is presumed to have knowingly possessed them. Although this presumption is rebuttable, in this case, based upon all the evidence, the jury properly could have drawn the inference of criminal possession from the defendant’s presence at the place of discovery.
The Court have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
In another criminal case, In an action to collect the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which, inter alia, upon granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint.
A Suffolk County Criminal attorney said that the plaintiff’s decedent submitted an application for life insurance, to the respondent, an insurance company. One of the questions on the application asked whether the applicant had ever been “arrested for the use or possession” of any narcotic, barbituate, amphetamine, or hallucinogenic drug. The application stated that the respondent would not accept insurance premiums if this question was not answered or was answered “Yes”. The plaintiff’s decedent responded “No” to this question, thereby claiming that he had never been arrested for the use or possession of any of the stated drugs, and the policy was issued. The plaintiff’s decedent died of gunshot wounds within the two-year contestability period of the insurance policy. The respondent then learned that the plaintiff’s decedent had been arrested and charged with knowingly and intentionally distributing and possessing cocaine before he filled out the application. The respondent then rescinded the policy, refunded the premiums paid, and refused to pay the life insurance proceeds.
“No misrepresentation shall be deemed material unless knowledge by the insurer of the facts misrepresented would have led to a refusal by the insurer to make such contract” (Insurance Law § 3105[b]. In order to evaluate the question of materiality and disclose relevant information, documentation such as the insurance company’s underwriting manuals, rules or bulletins, which pertain to insuring similar risks, should be submitted. An underwriting staff consultant for the respondent stated that the life insurance policy would not have been issued if the plaintiff’s decedent had truthfully answered the question and disclosed his criminal arrest record. The respondent, in its underwriting manual, also had a policy of declining to issue life insurance policies to individuals who were convicted of selling or distributing drugs or individuals that continually interacted with drug abusers, whether socially or occupationally. The issue of whether an applicant had ever been arrested for possession of illegal drugs was material to the respondent in making its determination of whether it would issue the insurance policy. Because the plaintiff’s decedent did not truthfully answer the question and disclose his criminal arrest record, he made a material misrepresentation as a matter of law and summary judgment was properly granted.
The Court further held that the plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Delicate cases involving drugs should be handled by expert criminal lawyers, such as our Suffolk County drug possession attorneys herein Stephen Bilkis and Associates. By reason of their exposure in this field, lot of criminal cases was handled effectively and diligently. Particularly, our Suffolk County Cocaine lawyers will render their advice on these kind of illegal drugs.