Opinion
September 27, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In reviewing suppression issues, great weight must be accorded to the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses. Its determination should not be disturbed unless it is clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Auxilly, 173 A.D.2d 627). In the present case, the record supports the hearing court's conclusion that a co-occupant of the defendant's home consented to the entry by police officers (see, People v Gonzalez, 39 N.Y.2d 122; People v Auxilly, supra; People v Boylan, 111 A.D.2d 928).
The defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to conduct an inquiry of a polled juror who stated that he did not agree with the verdict is without merit. The trial court properly sent the jury back to deliberate after a single polled juror answered "no" when asked if his verdict was guilty (see, CPL 310.80; People v Pena, 188 A.D.2d 349; People v Cortes, 173 A.D.2d 319).
It was not illegal to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment on those crimes arising from the defendant's possession of several different weapons (see, People v Negron, 184 A.D.2d 532; People v Igartua, 171 A.D.2d 547). Moreover, in light of the facts of this case, we find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.