People v. MalavePeople v. Malave
We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in directing that the sentences imposed for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under counts 1 through 4 of the indictment shall run consecutively with respect to each other, that the sentence imposed for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under count 9 shall run consecutively with counts 1 through 4, and that the sentence imposed for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under count 11 shall run consecutively with counts 1 through 4 and count 9. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. The evidence at trial established only defendant’s constructive possession of the firearms in support of the crimes of which defendant was convicted, and thus the People proved only a single actus reus (see People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640, 643 [1996]; People v Christman, 23 NY2d 429, 433-434 [1969]; People v Rogers, 111 AD2d 665 [1985], lv denied 66 NY2d 617 [1985]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v BALTAZAR MALAVE, Appellant. [860 NYS2d 365]—