Opinion
September 23, 1985
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial as the result of several alleged errors by the court, including the denial of that branch of his motion which was to suppress certain evidence, and the charge to the jury on the issue of forcible compulsion.
With respect to the suppression ruling, we agree with the hearing court that the police properly entered defendant's apartment after identifying themselves, stating their purpose and obtaining defendant's free and voluntary consent to their entry (see, Payton v New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576-578; People v Murphy, 76 A.D.2d 935, affd 55 N.Y.2d 819). Accordingly, the observations and evidence obtained thereafter by the police as a result of their warrantless entry into defendant's apartment were properly admitted into evidence.
Further in reviewing the trial court's charge as a whole on the issue of forcible compulsion, we conclude that the jury was properly instructed as to the appropriate legal principles to be applied pursuant to Penal Law § 135.00 (1) with respect to unlawful "restriction". The charge adequately conveyed to the jury the requirement that the perpetrator have knowledge that such conduct was unlawful. Any failure by the court to read the precise language of that subdivision of the statute to the jury constitutes, at most, harmless error (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.