Opinion
February 23, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun found in the defendant's apartment. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police entry into his home did not violate Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573). There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the hearing courts conclusion that the defendant consented to the police entry into his home ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 222 A.D.2d 453; People v. Washington, 209 A.D.2d 817, 819; cf., People v. Richardson, 229 A.D.2d 316) and to the limited search for the gun ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 39 N.Y.2d 122, 128-130).
The trial court's denial of the defense request for a continuance after the defendant chose to substitute counsel on the eve of trial was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Swaby, 179 A.D.2d 793; People v. Sharpe, 166 A.D.2d 620; People v. Gabler, 129 A.D.2d 733).
Further, the court properly precluded the defendant from cross-examining the complainant, or eliciting testimony from the defendant's brother, about the brother's alleged sexual encounter with the complainant prior to the rape in order to establish a possible source of the semen recovered from the complainant's clothing. Pursuant to CPL 60.42, evidence that the complainant engaged in sex with another is admissible under the interest of justice provision to establish the source of the semen recovered ( see, CPL 60.42; People v. Labenski, 134 A.D.2d 907, 908; see also, People v. Maxwell, 122 A.D.2d 435). Here, however, the defendant, when making his offer of proof, conceded that he engaged in sexual relations with the complainant, rendering evidence of the source of the semen irrelevant. The admission of such evidence would be inconsistent "with the legislative purpose of barring harassment of victims of sexual crimes concerning irrelevant issues and of shielding the jury from confusing and prejudicial matters which have no bearing on the issue of the guilt or innocence of the [defendant]" ( People v. Crawford, 143 A.D.2d 141, 142; see also, People v. Boyd, 122 A.D.2d 273, 275). The defendant's belated contention that such evidence was admissible because he was entitled to proffer inconsistent defenses is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In addition, this claim is not properly before this Court since it was raised for the first time in the defendant's reply brief ( see, People v. Ford, 69 N.Y.2d 775, 777).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.