People v. Pearson, 556 N.E.2d 1076 (N.Y. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Pearson, 556 N.E.2d 1076 (N.Y. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
50 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Key (Timothy), 2024 NY Slip Op 50285(U) (N.Y. App. Term. 2024)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
75 N.Y.2d at 1002 “presence in a public place does not itself prove dominion and control over contraband discovered there”8 citing cases2 citing courts quote it
  • People v. Key (Timothy), 2024 NY Slip Op 50285(U) (N.Y. App. Term. 2024).unpublished 2 cites
    Absent allegations that defendant resided in the premises, frequented it on a regular basis, or was engaged in any drug-related activity there ( see People v Pearson , 75 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1990]; People v Dawkins , 136 AD2d 726, 727 [1988])…
  • People v. Wiltshire (Joseph), No. 2019 NYSlipOp 50206(U) (N.Y. App. Term. Feb. 25, 2019).published
    There was no allegation that defendant had control over or a possessory interest in the location, described in the complaint as "NYC property" with posted "no trespass" signs, or was engaged in any drug-related activity, nor an allegation…
  • People v. Slocum (Anthony), No. 2017 NYSlipOp 51369(U) (N.Y. App. Term. Oct. 16, 2017).published
    There was no allegation that defendant owned, rented or had control over or a possessory interest in the location, or was engaged in any drug-related activity there ( see People v Pearson , 75 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1990]).
  • Mendez v. City of New York, 137 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).published 2 cites
    "Presence in a public place does not itself prove dominion and control over contraband discovered there" ( People v Pearson , 75 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1990]).
  • People v. Brown, 133 A.D.3d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    Under these specific circumstances, the People failed to prove that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband, and therefore failed to prove the possession element of the counts as charged (see People v Huertas, 32 A…
  • People v. Glassman-Blanco, 42 Misc. 3d 96 (N.Y. App. Term. 2013).published
    A defendant’s presence in a public place, by itself, is insuf ficient to demonstrate reasonable cause to believe that the defendant exercised dominion or control over the contraband (People v Pearson, 75 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1990]).
  • People v. Mayo, 59 A.D.3d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2009).published
    The Court of Appeals, however, has held that proof of the defendant’s “mere presence” in an apartment that the defendant did not own, rent or occupy is insufficient to establish his dominion and control over drugs, guns or paraphernalia th…
  • People v. Willis (Shawn), No. 2019 NYSlipOp 50151(U) (N.Y. App. Term. Feb. 1, 2019).published 2 cites
    "In New York, the rule has long been that to support a charge that a defendant was in constructive possession of tangible property, the People must show that the defendant exercised 'dominion or control' over the property by a sufficient l…
75 N.Y.2d at 1001 cited at this page1 citing case
  • People v. Scott, 206 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1994).published
    The People offered no proof that the defendant had any connection to the basement except his mere presence therein on the day in question (see, People v Pearson, supra, at 1001; People v Headley, 143 AD2d 937, 938 , affd 74 NY2d 858 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Dwayne Pearson
New York Court of Appeals.
May 10, 1990.
Published opinion
556 N.E.2d 1076
1990 N.Y. LEXIS 1074
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Richard S. Missan and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant., John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Howard Meshnick of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 42 opinions  |  Published

[*1002] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified. Defendant’s convictions on the first and third counts for criminal possession of a controlled substance and the sentence thereon should be vacated and those counts dismissed. The order should be otherwise affirmed.

The People’s evidence was legally insufficient to establish defendant’s constructive possession of the cocaine found in the back room of a grocery store where defendant was arrested. Immediately after announcing his presence, the arresting officer observed the defendant and three others exiting a back room of a grocery store and walking briskly towards the front exit. There was contraband in the back room in plain view. There was no evidence that defendant owned, rented or had control over or a possessory interest in the store or the back room (compare, People v Watson, 56 NY2d 632; People v Robertson, 48 NY2d 993; People v Phiefer, 43 NY2d 719). Nor was there proof that defendant was involved in any drug selling or other operation being conducted there (compare, People v Tejeda, 73 NY2d 958; People v Gina, 137 AD2d 555, lv denied 71 NY2d 1027).

The proof that defendant was coming from the back room is insufficient. Presence in a public place does not itself prove dominion and control over contraband discovered there (see, People v Headley, 74 NY2d 858, 859, affg 143 AD2d 937; People v Russell, 34 NY2d 261, 264-265; People v Siplin, 29 NY2d 841; Penal Law § 10.00 [8]; cf., People v Dawkins, 136 AD2d 726, 727 [defendant found standing in kitchen of apartment with vials of cocaine between her feet]). The case of People v Tejeda (73 NY2d 958, supra) cited by the People is distinguishable. There the drugs were found in an apartment in which the defendant was present and the statutory presumption of possession applied (see, Penal Law § 220.25).

Defendant’s remaining contentions pertaining to his conviction on the other counts of the indictment are without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.