N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART Specific Offenses / TITLE Offenses Against Public Health and Morals / ARTICLE Controlled Substances Offenses
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 220.25 (2026)

Criminal possession of a controlled substance; presumption

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 220.25 Criminal possession of a controlled substance; presumption.
  1. The presence of a controlled substance in an automobile, other than
a public omnibus, is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof
by each and every person in the automobile at the time such controlled
substance was found; except that such presumption does not apply (a) to
a duly licensed operator of an automobile who is at the time operating
it for hire in the lawful and proper pursuit of his trade, or (b) to any
person in the automobile if one of them, having obtained the controlled
substance and not being under duress, is authorized to possess it and
such controlled substance is in the same container as when he received
possession thereof, or (c) when the controlled substance is concealed
upon the person of one of the occupants.
  2. The presence of a narcotic drug, narcotic preparation, marihuana or
phencyclidine in open view in a room, other than a public place, under
circumstances evincing an intent to unlawfully mix, compound, package or
otherwise prepare for sale such controlled substance is presumptive
evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in close
proximity to such controlled substance at the time such controlled
substance was found; except that such presumption does not apply to any
such persons if (a) one of them, having obtained such controlled
substance and not being under duress, is authorized to possess it and
such controlled substance is in the same container as when he received
possession thereof, or (b) one of them has such controlled substance
upon his person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 291 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: The People v. Marcus D. Hogan, 48 N.E.3d 58 (NY 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The People v. Marcus D. Hogan, 48 N.E.3d 58 (NY 2016). · cites it 16× “: Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the drug factory presumption of Penal Law § 220.25 was properly considered by the factfinder.”
People v. Martinez, 628 N.E.2d 1320 (NY 1993). · cites it 20× “In submitting the criminal possession count, the trial court instructed the jury that it could find defendant guilty of either actual possession or constructive possession and that it could find that defendant knowingly possessed the drugs by applying the "drug factory"…”
The People v. Stanley R. Kims, II, 24 N.E.3d 573 (NY 2014). · cites it 8× “Therefore, the trial court erroneously charged the jury on defendant’s knowing criminal possession of drugs under the “drug factory” presumption of Penal Law § 220.25 (2). We further agree with the Appellate Division that, under the circumstances of this case, and in accordance…”
People v. Nelson, 2017 NY Slip Op 8903 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 2× “Turning first to the issue of possession, the People’s case was predicated on the automobile presumption contained in Penal Law § 220.25 (1). That provision provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he presence of a controlled substance in an automobile .”
People v. Leader, 27 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 2× “Indeed, as County Court instructed the jury, there is a permissive statutory presumption that the presence of a controlled substance in a private auto “is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in the automobile at the time such controlled…”
People v. Williams, 301 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 2× “In furtherance thereof, the People relied upon the Penal Law provision that the presence of a controlled substance in an automobile is presumptive evidence of knowing possession by each and every individual in the vehicle at the time the controlled substance was found (Penal Law…”
Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125 (D.C. 2001). · cites it 2× “"); N.Y. Penal Law § 220.25 (1) (Consol., LEXIS through 2001 legislation) (controlled substance in automobile other than public omnibus is presumptive evidence of possession); Vt.”
Kims, II, Stanley R., People v., 96 A.D.3d 1595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · cites it 8× “We agree with defendant that County Court erred in charging the jury with respect to the presumption contained in Penal Law § 220.25 (2). That presumption, known as the “room presumption,” provides that the presence of, inter alia, a “narcotic drug .”
Joseph Bellavia v. Walter Fogg, Warden, Green Haven Corr. Facility, Stormville, New York, 613 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1979). · cites it 6× “Sifton, District Judge, which denied a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, appellant challenges the constitutionality of his state court conviction for possession and sale of cocaine on three grounds: (1) that New York’s statutory presumption that the…”
People v. Kalin, 906 N.E.2d 381 (NY 2009). “, he could attempt to demonstrate an actual lack of knowledge that the drugs were in the car to rebut the statutory presumption in Penal Law § 220.25 [1]). These facts were also specific enough to allow defendant to invoke the protection of double jeopardy in the event that he…”
People v. Bombard, 2020 NY Slip Op 06174 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 2× “in open view in a room, other than a public place, under circumstances evincing an intent to unlawfully mix, compound, package or otherwise prepare for sale such controlled substance is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in close…”
People v. Kalabakas, 2020 NY Slip Op 2954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 2× “Although defense counsel moved for a trial order of dismissal of all counts on this ground at the close of proof, [FN5] he conceded that the automobile presumption applied to the controlled substances found in that compartment, providing presumptive evidence of defendant's…”
Show all 291 citing cases →
— N.Y. Penal Law § 220.25(1) — 5 cases
Elk v. Townson, 839 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
Lopez v. Curry, 583 F.2d 1188 (2d Cir. 1978).
Elk v. Townson, 839 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
Parsons v. Burge, 373 F. Supp. 2d 200 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
People v. Henderson, 2004 NY Slip Op 50349(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2004).
— N.Y. Penal Law § 220.25(2) — 2 cases
People v. Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 2879 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
People v. Holquin, 2018 NY Slip Op 6970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.