Opinion
2013-06-7
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael P. DEWITT, Defendant–Appellant.
John E. Tyo, Shortsville, for Defendant–Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (David Dys of Counsel), for Respondent.
John E. Tyo, Shortsville, for Defendant–Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (David Dys of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the search warrant and the supporting affidavit identified the make, model, color and identification number of the vehicle to be searched and thus described with sufficient particularity the vehicle to be searched ( see generally People v. Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396, 401, 369 N.Y.S.2d 50, 330 N.E.2d 26;People v. Palmeri, 272 A.D.2d 968, 969, 710 N.Y.S.2d 487,lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 967, 722 N.Y.S.2d 485, 745 N.E.2d 405). Although the vehicle was mistakenly listed in the warrant under the heading “persons,” “ hypertechnical accuracy” of the description in the warrant is not required ( Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d at 401, 369 N.Y.S.2d 50, 330 N.E.2d 26). Thus, we conclude that County Court properly denied that part of defendant's omnibus motion seeking suppression of the gun seized during the search of defendant's vehicle pursuant to the search warrant.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.