PEOPLE v. LINER (2006)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered July 7, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 3 1/212 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.   The evidence, including defendant's possession of two knives during the commission of a crime and the fact that he reached to his right side where one knife was located, supported the inference that he intended to use them unlawfully (see People v. Malik, 21 A.D.3d 779, 801 N.Y.S.2d 27 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 778, 811 N.Y.S.2d 345, 844 N.E.2d 800 [2006];  Matter of Aida S., 189 A.D.2d 818, 592 N.Y.S.2d 442 [1993] ).

 Two trespass notices barring defendant from entering a chain of drugstores were properly admitted as business records and did not violate defendant's right of confrontation (see Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 56, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004];  People v. Grogan, 28 A.D.3d 579, 581, 816 N.Y.S.2d 93 [2006] ), even assuming that one purpose of such a notice is to prove, at a later trial, that the defendant knew his or her entry was unlawful (State v. Bellerouche, 129 Wash.App. 912, 916-917, 120 P.3d 971 [2005] ).   The notices, generated long before defendant's arrest, were not prepared by or on behalf of law enforcement, nor were they created solely for the purpose of criminal prosecution (compare People v. Pacer, 6 N.Y.3d 504, 509-512, 814 N.Y.S.2d 575, 847 N.E.2d 1149 [2006];  People v. Rogers, 8 A.D.3d 888, 891-892, 780 N.Y.S.2d 393 [2004] ).   We decline to decide whether other bases exist for finding the Confrontation Clause inapplicable to these documents, since no such theories were raised by the People at trial or ruled upon by the court.

We have considered defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them without merit.