PEOPLE v. PETERSON (2000)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.21) and conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law § 105.15) arising from acts that occurred in 1997.   Defendant contends that attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree is a legal impossibility.   We disagree.   After 1995 the People were no longer required to prove that a defendant knew the actual weight of the controlled substance (see, Penal Law § 220.21, as amended by L.1995, ch. 75, § 5).   Thus, that element of the offense became a strict liability element.   The proscribed conduct is the possession of the controlled substance (see generally, People v. Saunders, 85 N.Y.2d 339, 341-343, 624 N.Y.S.2d 568, 648 N.E.2d 1331).   The element of weight is an aggravating factor serving merely to elevate the degree of the offense and the severity of the punishment.   When strict liability attaches only to an aggravating circumstance, there can be an attempt to commit that crime (see, People v. Miller, 87 N.Y.2d 211, 218, 638 N.Y.S.2d 577, 661 N.E.2d 1358;  see also, People v. Prescott, 263 A.D.2d 254, 704 N.Y.S.2d 410 [decided herewith] ).

 The eavesdropping warrants challenged by defendant were issued with the requisite showing of probable cause and necessity (see, People v. Baris, 116 A.D.2d 174, 184, 186-187, 500 N.Y.S.2d 572, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 1050, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 495 N.E.2d 358).   The supporting affidavits established that the informants were reliable because they had provided accurate information in the past (see, People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 556-557, 369 N.Y.S.2d 677, 330 N.E.2d 631;  see also, People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 489, 438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946).   The basis of knowledge of the informants was established by their personal observations of defendant's possession and sale of large amounts of cocaine (see, People v. Hanlon, supra, at 556-557, 369 N.Y.S.2d 677, 330 N.E.2d 631;  People v. Shetler, 256 A.D.2d 1234, 682 N.Y.S.2d 784).   The police established the necessity of the eavesdropping warrants by showing that undercover investigations had failed and that other methods were unlikely to succeed (see, People v. Baris, supra, at 187, 500 N.Y.S.2d 572).

Defendant's further contentions concerning the eavesdropping warrants are unpreserved for our review (see, People v. Potenza, 92 A.D.2d 21, 24, n. 2, 459 N.Y.S.2d 639), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a] ).   We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: