Opinion
August 1, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The arresting officer was the only witness at the Mapp hearing in this case. He testified that, in response to a radio transmission concerning drug sales at a specified street corner by a black male wearing a black "bomber" coat and light gray pants, he went to the location and observed the defendant who matched the description. The officer, who knew of numerous complaints of drug sales on this street corner, observed a plastic bag protruding from the defendant's coat pocket. The officer recognized the contents of the bag to be vials of "crack". Seizure of the bag revealed that it contained 46 vials of crack. The hearing court credited the officer's testimony, held that the arrest was based upon probable cause, and denied the suppression motion.
The hearing court's denial of the application to suppress physical evidence was proper. The officer's observation of contraband in plain view on a public street corner provided probable cause for seizure of the bag and the defendant's arrest (see, People v Langen, 60 N.Y.2d 170, cert denied 465 U.S. 1028; People v Jackson, 41 N.Y.2d 146; People v Allah, 131 A.D.2d 765, 766, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 797). We reject the defendant's contention that the officer's testimony that the contraband was in plain view was incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Smith, 130 A.D.2d 600, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 717; People v Williams, 121 A.D.2d 488, 489, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 818).
We further find that the hearing court's denial of the defense counsel's request for a continuance for the purposes of obtaining the tape of the 911 call which was the basis for the dispatcher's notification to the arresting officer and the production in court of the vials of crack was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473). The request for production of the vials of crack was untimely and did not comply with the requirements of CPL 240.10. Furthermore, the 911 call was not relied upon as the basis for probable cause, and the defense counsel had a copy of the "sprint report" which summarized the contents of the 911 call. Similarly, the officer's testimony included a detailed description of the seized items. Thus, the defendant has not shown how he was prejudiced by the court's rulings (see, People v Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 632, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 645; People v Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700, 702). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.