Opinion
2019–00957 Ind. No. 194/18
11-09-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Senate RIVERA, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Alice R.B. Cullina of counsel), for appellant. Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Timothy Pezzoli of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Alice R.B. Cullina of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Timothy Pezzoli of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, PAUL WOOTEN, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Alexander Jeong, J.), rendered December 17, 2018, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to controvert search warrants and suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
After the issuance of three search warrants based upon information from two undercover police officers and a confidential informant, the police recovered one loaded pistol, ammunition, heroin, fentanyl, and drug paraphernalia from inside two apartments located at 50 Caroline Street in Richmond County.
The defendant moved, inter alia, to controvert the search warrants and suppress the evidence seized by the police. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. The defendant thereafter entered a plea of guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant appeals.
As an initial matter, contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's contention that one of the warrants was not supported by probable cause is preserved for appellate review. Although the defendant did not raise any arguments related to whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause in his motion, inter alia, to controvert the search warrants and suppress the evidence seized in the execution thereof, the Supreme Court "expressly decided" the issue of whether the warrant was supported by probable cause (see CPL 470.05[2] ; see generally People v. Palmer, 84 A.D.3d 1414, 923 N.Y.S.2d 907 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of his motion which were to controvert search warrants and suppress the evidence seized in the execution thereof. "There is a strong judicial preference for search warrants" ( People v. Corr, 28 A.D.3d 574, 575, 816 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; see People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 558, 369 N.Y.S.2d 677, 330 N.E.2d 631 ). "The search warrant application must provide the court with sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that evidence of illegal activity will be present at the specific time and place of the search" ( People v. Corr, 28 A.D.3d at 575, 816 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; see People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451 ). Here, there was probable cause to issue the subject search warrants (see People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d at 423, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451 ; People v. Williams, 249 A.D.2d 343, 344, 670 N.Y.S.2d 893 ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in upholding the provision in the search warrants permitting the police officers to enter the subject location without announcing their presence is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.05[2] ).
Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's judgment of conviction.
DUFFY, J.P., MALTESE, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.