Opinion
December 19, 1986
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Murray, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Schnepp, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the warrantless search and seizure of the property found in his apartment was improper because the police were unlawfully in his home in violation of Payton v. New York ( 445 U.S. 573). Police had gone to defendant's home after he had been identified by an eyewitness as being a suspect in a burglary in progress. The record indicates that defendant voluntarily accompanied the police outside his home for questioning (see, People v. Minley, 68 N.Y.2d 952). While police were questioning defendant on his front porch, another officer confirmed the fact that there had been a break-in at 444 Allen Street, thus giving police the requisite probable cause to make a lawful arrest (cf. People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234). When police then advised defendant that he was under arrest, defendant physically resisted and fled back into his house, locking the door behind him. Defendant's conduct clearly gave rise to exigent circumstances justifying police action in pursuing him in an attempt to prevent his escape (see, People v. Mealer, 57 N.Y.2d 214; People v. Battee, 94 A.D.2d 935; cf. People v. Leung, 68 N.Y.2d 734, 736). Since the police were thus lawfully in the hallway of defendant's apartment building, the suppression court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the stolen property which was observed "in plain view" through the open door of defendant's apartment (see, Texas v Brown, 460 U.S. 730; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 469-470; People v. Battee, supra).
The court did not err in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting any hearing. Such a motion to withdraw a guilty plea rests largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made (CPL 220.60; People v Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 927).