THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. AIMAN ABUJUDEH DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2014)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, willful possession or transport of unstamped cigarettes (see Tax Law § 1814[c][1] ).   We reject defendant's challenges to County Court's exercises of discretion.   The court properly exercised its discretion in conducting the trial in his absence (see People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 142).   The court issued repeated Parker warnings to defendant and, when defendant failed to appear, it conducted a sufficient inquiry to warrant the conclusion that his “nonappearance constituted a waiver of his right to be present at trial” (People v. Williams, 170 A.D.2d 968, 969, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 968;  see People v. Toomer, 272 A.D.2d 990, 991, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 872).   The court also properly exercised its discretion in limiting defendant's cross-examination of a prosecution witness (see People v. Bryant, 73 AD3d 1442, 1443, lv denied 15 NY3d 850).

Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the People established a proper foundation for the admission of the cigarettes in evidence (see People v. Foley, 257 A.D.2d 243, 254, affd 94 N.Y.2d 668, cert denied 531 U.S. 875;  People v. Jackson, 306 A.D.2d 910, 910–911, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 595, reconsideration denied 1 NY3d 540), and “any irregularities in the chain of custody went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility” (People v. Washington, 39 AD3d 1228, 1230, lv denied 9 NY3d 870).   Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of willful possession or transport of unstamped cigarettes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).   Finally, defendant's contention with respect to the alleged violation of his right to seek remission of his forfeited bail is not properly raised on the appeal from his judgment of conviction (see People v. Baron, 133 A.D.2d 833, 834–835, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 929).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court