Opinion
January 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).
We agree with the suppression court that the People satisfied their burden of proving that the private security guard did not have any connection with law enforcement agencies or their personnel, and that his acts therefore are not subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny (People v. Lovejoy, 197 A.D.2d 353, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 926). Nor were the People required to prove that the store manager was not an agent of the State, defendant having failed to raise any issue with respect to the manager in his moving papers, and in any event, the evidence showed that the security guard took defendant into custody without consulting the manager and that the latter's role in the incident was otherwise insignificant.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.