Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cochese GREGORY, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cori Weston, J., at suppression hearing; Steven Statsinger, J., at trial and sentencing), rendered January 29, 2025, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent five-year terms, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient is unpreserved (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492–492 [2008]; People v Jones, 248 AD3d 521, 522 [1st Dept 2026] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Baque, 43 NY3d 26, 30 [2024]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007] ). Initially, we find no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations. The jury had ample basis to conclude that defendant had possessed the firearm in question. Most importantly, defendant's DNA was recovered from the firearm in an area where he had passed through about one minute earlier, and in a building where he did not live. Video evidence of the police pursuit showed no one else roaming in the hallway or staircase during that time. Furthermore, one officer testified that he heard a “thud” near the location where the firearm was later recovered as defendant fled, and the People presented evidence of consciousness of guilt. Taken together, this evidence provided a sound basis for the jury to conclude that defendant had, in fact, possessed the firearm.
The hearing court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The court properly found that defendant's abandonment of the firearm underneath a garbage bag was an intentional relinquishment of any privacy interest (see People v Archer, 160 AD3d 553, 554 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1144 [2018] ) and was a strategic and calculated decision rather than a spontaneous reaction to police activity (see People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 402–404 [1979]; People v Archer, 160 AD3d at 554).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Ind. No. 72402 /22
Decided: October 22, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)