Opinion
May 2, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion on appeal, the hearing record demonstrates that police officers entered his apartment, arrested him, and seized drugs, weapons, and other contraband found in plain view, only after obtaining the permission of a co-occupant of the apartment who clearly possessed the authority to consent to their entry (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 1, cert denied 454 U.S. 854; People v. Huff, 200 A.D.2d 761). The defendant contends that the hearing testimony of his witnesses, including the testimony of the co-occupant denying that she gave the police permission to enter the apartment, is more credible than that of the People's witnesses on the issue of consent. However, the determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, is entitled to great deference and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Huff, supra). We find that the record supports the hearing court's resolution of the credibility issues in favor of the People.
In any event, the hearing court properly determined that the exigencies of the situation justified the warrantless entry into the defendant's apartment (see, People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173, cert denied 426 U.S. 953; People v. Carby, 198 A.D.2d 366; People v. Wilson, 191 A.D.2d 528, 529). Since the officers had lawfully entered the apartment, the subsequent seizure of the drugs, weapons, and other contraband which were in plain view was proper (see, People v. Wilson, supra, at 529; People v. Arroyo, 188 A.D.2d 655, 656).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.