Opinion
March 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing showed that at about 8:20 P.M. on September 15, 1990, Police Officer Blache and his partner were on routine motor patrol in front of an apartment building located on Kissena Boulevard in Queens County when they were approached by an anonymous female coming from the direction of the building who told them that there was a violent dispute going on inside apartment 3-U. The officers immediately proceeded to the apartment at which point Officer Blache testified that he heard the sounds of gunshots and of people moving and conversing inside the apartment. Although their first attempt to gain entry into the apartment was unsuccessful, Officer Blache was able to gain entry within a minute or so after his arrival. Once inside, the officer could observe in plain view a quantity of drugs and drug paraphernalia as well as six people, including the defendant, at various locations throughout the apartment. A subsequent sweep through the back bedroom of the apartment revealed more drugs and drug paraphernalia as well as a "revolver-style" starter pistol, also all in plain view.
The defendant's argument that Officer Blache's hearing testimony was not credible and that it was obviously tailored to meet constitutional objections is without merit. It is well settled that "the determination of the suppression court, with its advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses" must be accorded great weight on appeal, and its determination should not be disturbed if it is supported by the record (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. McAvoy, 142 A.D.2d 605; see, People v. Tromp, 160 A.D.2d 750; see also, People v. Davis, 166 A.D.2d 604; People v. Rose, 159 A.D.2d 600). We find that there is ample support for the hearing court's resolution of credibility issues and its determination to credit Officer Blache's testimony.
We further find that the hearing court properly determined that the exigencies of the situation justified the warrantless entry into the defendant's apartment (see, People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173, cert denied 426 U.S. 953; People v. Mato, 160 A.D.2d 435; People v. Cartier, 149 A.D.2d 524). Since the officers had lawfully entered the apartment, the subsequent seizure of the drugs and drug paraphernalia which were in plain view was proper (see, People v. Reilly, 155 A.D.2d 961; People v. Brown, 115 A.D.2d 791; People v. De Vito, 114 A.D.2d 374). Moreover, in view of the number of people in the apartment, the presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia, and the sound of gunshots, Officer Blache was justified in conducting a sweep through the back bedroom of the apartment to check for the presence of any possible gunmen who might be hiding there (see, People v. Rivera, 172 A.D.2d 1059; People v. Golob, 154 A.D.2d 709; People v. McGaha, 144 A.D.2d 388; People v. Green, 103 A.D.2d 362). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.