Opinion
June 11, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Harold J. Rothwax, J.
Upon a review of the record of the suppression hearing, we agree with the hearing court's conclusion that defendant abandoned the bag in which the police discovered 40 vials of crack. By first attempting to conceal the small paper bag once he made eye contact with the uniformed police officers, and then discarding it by throwing it to the ground behind him and attempting to distance himself from it by walking away, defendant clearly evinced an intent to abandon the property (People v Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, 402, cert denied 444 U.S. 969; People v Diaz, 180 A.D.2d 415), rather than to temporarily deposit it (People v. Campbell, 160 A.D.2d 363, affd 76 N.Y.2d 921) or deliberately secrete it from the police (People v. Kelly, 172 A.D.2d 458, affd 79 N.Y.2d 899). Moreover, since the recovery of the drugs was not a consequence of the momentary detention or seizure of defendant, but was wholly independent thereof, suppression would not be warranted even if the seizure was unreasonable (People v. Milaski, 62 N.Y.2d 147, 156; see also, People v. Rogers, 52 N.Y.2d 527, 532-533, cert denied 454 U.S. 898, reh denied 459 U.S. 898).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.