Opinion
July 6, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Corriero, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
A review of the record indicates that the defendant's statements and certain physical evidence were properly held to be admissible. The police officers were lawfully on the premises wherein the defendant was found and could question the defendant concerning whether he had a license for his dismantling activities, which were properly viewed by the police (see, People v. McIver, 124 A.D.2d 520; see also, People v. Salamino, 107 A.D.2d 827). Upon an indication that the defendant had no license, he was promptly arrested for a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 415-a (1) and advised of his Miranda rights. The defendant's subsequent statements were admissible since it is not disputed that he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and agreed to talk to the police. Further, all of the physical evidence which formed the basis of certain counts of indictment No. 3462/84 was admissible since it was obtained either after (1) the defendant voluntarily consented to a search of the premises or (2) the issuance of an undisputedly valid search warrant. Since there is no indication in the record that the challenged physical evidence was discovered pursuant to the purported inspection authority granted to the police by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 415-a (5) (a) or New York City Charter § 436, we need not reach the issue of the constitutionality of those statutes (cf., New York v. Burger, 482 US ___, 96 L Ed 2d 601, revg 67 N.Y.2d 338). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.