Opinion
April 28, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress items seized by the police and his statements to the police as the fruits of illegal searches of his hotel room, rental car and luggage. The record supports the court's conclusions that defendant voluntarily consented to the officers' entry into the hotel room (see, People v Murphy, 55 N.Y.2d 819; People v Brown, 115 A.D.2d 791, 792-793, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 880) and that the seizure of the marihuana and drug paraphernalia in plain view in the hotel room was lawful (see, People v Brown, supra, at 793). The court also properly determined that defendant's explicit disclaimer of ownership or other interest in the rental car or its contents constituted an abandonment (see, People v Jacob, 202 A.D.2d 444, 445, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 872; People v Hazel, 194 A.D.2d 440, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 755; see also, People v Hollman, 79 N.Y.2d 181, 193-194) and that the officers were entitled to rely on the consent of defendant's companion, who had driven the rental car to the hotel and possessed the keys (see, People v Banks, 202 A.D.2d 902, 905, lv granted 83 N.Y.2d 916).
The record establishes that defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing and thus no reconstruction hearing is necessary (cf., People v Mitchell, 189 A.D.2d 337). Defendant's presence was not required at a side-bar conference involving only questions of law or procedure (see, People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472; People v Woodrich, 212 A.D.2d 998; People v Daniel, 206 A.D.2d 856, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 906).
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), is sufficient to support defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (see, People v Love, 204 A.D.2d 97, 98, affd 84 N.Y.2d 917; People v Goss, 204 A.D.2d 984, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 826).