possessed 287 vials of crack-cocaine. See N.Y.Penal Law §§ 220.09, 220.16, 220.18 (McKinney 1989). Since petitioner did not have these vials in his physical possession at the time of his arrest and had not been seen selling them, the prosecution was obligated to prove that petitioner constructively possessed the vials. Constructive possession under New York law requires a showing that the defendant “exercised dominion or control over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found or over the person from whom the contraband is seized.” People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561, 573, 584 N.Y.S.2d 282, 594 N.E.2d 563 (1992); see also N.Y.Penal Law § 10.00(8) (McKinney 1987); People v. Whitehead, 159 A.D.2d 741, 552 N.Y.S.2d 685 (App.Div.1990) (<HOLDING>); People v. Simms, 175 A.D.2d 144, 572 N.Y.S.2d
holding that a grocery store clerk exercised sufficient dominion and control to constitute constructive possession of fireworks where the fireworks were next to or in the general proximity of the clerk who was in a plexiglassenclosed area to which the public did not have access holding that constructive possession exists where one knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object either directly or through others holding that the filing of a motion to dismiss the case by the clerk of court did not interrupt the running of the threeyear prescriptive period for abandonment because the action was taken by the clerk of court a nonparty holding that an instruction requiring the jury to find that the defendant had the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine was adequate to convey the principle that mere presence or proximity is not sufficient holding that proof that the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located is sufficient to establish constructive possession citation omitted