Opinion
February 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Following a suppression hearing after remittitur (see, People v Barrows, 155 A.D.2d 470), the Supreme Court denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the weapons and illegal drugs seized during a warrantless search of the apartment in which the defendant was found. We agree with the determination by the Supreme Court that the exigencies of the situation justified the warrantless entry by the police into the apartment. The record shows that within minutes of receiving a radio call of shots fired at 24 East 96th Street, Apartment 2B, Police Officers Faraci and Chiofolo knocked on the apartment door to investigate. When the door opened, Officer Faraci noticed a male in the background who met the description given in the radio call. Because this individual was partially hidden from view and the radio call had indicated that he was carrying a gun, the officers rushed in and secured the apartment. Under these circumstances, the recovery of the guns and the illegal drugs inside the apartment, which were in plain view, was a lawful result of the entry into the apartment dictated by the exigencies of the situation (see, People v Cartier, 149 A.D.2d 524, cert denied ___ US ___, 110 S Ct 1927; People v De Vito, 114 A.D.2d 374; People v Green, 103 A.D.2d 362).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.