Opinion
November 16, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alfano, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court acted properly in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun and ammunition seized by police at the crime scene. Even if we were to assume that the defendant possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment where his arrest was effected and the physical evidence was recovered, it is nevertheless clear that the warrantless entry by police into the subject premises to make the arrest was justified by exigent circumstances. Indeed, the defendant had committed the serious and violent offenses of sodomy and sexual abuse at gunpoint and the police were led to the scene of the offenses by the complainant within minutes of the crime. Moreover, the police reasonably believed that the defendant was still armed and knew from their observations of him prior to their entry that he was inside the premises. Finally, the complainant's identification of the defendant as her attacker provided ample probable cause for his arrest (see, People v Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, on remand 76 A.D.2d 867; People v. Brown, 130 A.D.2d 585, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 709; People v. White, 109 A.D.2d 859). Under these circumstances, the entry was not a violation of the prohibition against warrantless arrests set forth in Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573) (see, People v. Brown, supra; People v Pabon, 120 A.D.2d 685, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1003; People v Gordon, 110 A.D.2d 778; People v. Green, 103 A.D.2d 362; see generally, People v. Mealer, 57 N.Y.2d 214, cert denied 460 U.S. 1024).
Additionally, we note that the court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating the defendant a persistent felony offender and in imposing sentence accordingly, as the record reveals that the court was aware of the relevant factors and its determination is amply supported by the evidence (see, People v Drummond, 104 A.D.2d 825; People v. Oliver, 96 A.D.2d 1104, affd 63 N.Y.2d 973; People v. Stewart, 96 A.D.2d 622).
Finally, any error which the trial court may have committed in limiting defense counsel's direct examination of the defendant's wife must be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the dubious relevancy and probative value of her proffered testimony and the overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.