Opinion
June 22, 1990
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence seized on February 26, 1988. Officers had obtained a warrant to search defendant and his apartment based on their knowledge of defendant's sale of drugs on the previous day. They directed the arresting officer via police radio to stop defendant's vehicle and detain him (see, People v. Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Horowitz, 21 N.Y.2d 55). The subsequent search of defendant's person and vehicle and the seizure of the key and briefcase were justified as incident to a lawful arrest (see, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752; People v. Gokey, 60 N.Y.2d 309).
Defendant's remaining claims lack merit. The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the pedigree statement regarding his address (see, People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167). There was credible evidence to support the court's finding that papers and other items were seized on April 6, 1988 from defendant's residence and not from his vehicle (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759). The People sufficiently controverted defendant's suppression motion so as to require a hearing (CPL 710.60; People v. Gruden, 42 N.Y.2d 214). Defendant's due process rights were not violated. He raised the issue of the legality of the search in his motion papers and at the suppression hearing and there is no showing that he requested or was denied the opportunity to explore that issue (cf., People v Stith, 124 A.D.2d 342, mod on other grounds 69 N.Y.2d 313).