Opinion
May 14, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obus, J.).
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied in all respects. The hearing evidence established that the evidence recovered from defendant's person was seized incident to a lawful arrest, that the search of his apartment was based on consent, and that the evidence was properly subjected to testing ( see, People v. Natal, 75 N.Y.2d 379, 383, cert denied 498 U.S. 862).
On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL 440.10 motion, we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.