Opinion
May 23, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Braatz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Inasmuch as the record shows that the police used an alleged traffic infraction as a pretext to investigate a suspicion that the defendant had committed a burglary, the stop of his automobile constituted an impermissible seizure (see, People v Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413; People v Llopis, 125 A.D.2d 416; People v Seruya, 113 A.D.2d 777, 779, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 767). Consequently, the search of his car at the arrest scene may not be justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest; nor can the subsequent search of his car after its impoundment by the police be upheld as a proper inventory search (see, Colorado v Bertine, 479 U.S. 367; People v Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386). Nevertheless, since the record supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant consented to the search of his car, suppression of the items recovered therefrom was properly denied (see, People v Gonzalez, 39 N.Y.2d 122; People v Zimmerman, 101 A.D.2d 294).
The court also properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. Although the pretrial showup identification was unnecessary and unduly suggestive, there was an independent source for the witness's identification (see, People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 529; People v Brown, 125 A.D.2d 321; People v Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757).
Finally, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's application to withdraw his plea (see, People v Dixon, 29 N.Y.2d 55). The record shows that the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily chose to plead guilty to the crimes charged and his subsequent assertions of innocence and coercion are unsupported by the record (see, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 17; People v Matta, 103 A.D.2d 756). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.