Opinion
January 22, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant argues that the search of his apartment by law enforcement officials was invalid because it was made without a warrant, was not justified by exigent circumstances, and was based upon an unauthorized, warrantless private search by his landlord and the complainant.
The validity of the search of defendant's apartment was raised by his codefendant, Carl Michelsson, in People v. Michelsson ( 105 A.D.2d 852). This court found that defendant freely and voluntarily consented to the search when he invited a detective and the complainant into his apartment and that, therefore, the stolen property, which was in open view, was properly seized. The codefendant, however, never raised the issue that defendant raises now, i.e., that the evidence should be suppressed because the search by the police was based upon information gathered in an unauthorized search by private citizens.
Defendant never raised that issue before the suppression court, and therefore is now foreclosed from raising that issue on appeal ( People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029; People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, reversal would not be required.
"It is settled that an unauthorized search or seizure by private individuals * * * does not render the evidence inadmissible at subsequent civil or criminal proceedings" ( People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 528, 533). Therefore, the private "search" by complainant and the landlord did not preclude the otherwise valid later search and seizure by police which was based upon information discovered as a result of the private search ( People v. Gleeson, 36 N.Y.2d 462, 465-466). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Niehoff, JJ., concur.