Opinion
859 KA 19-00982
10-08-2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ANDRES ROBLES-PIZARRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN N. MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JESSICA N. CARBONE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN N. MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JESSICA N. CARBONE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Gordon J. Cuffy, A.J.), rendered November 30, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court (Brunetti, A.J.) erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his apartment. "It is well established that the police need not procure a warrant in order to conduct a lawful search when they have obtained the voluntary consent of a party possessing the requisite authority or control over the premises or property to be inspected" (People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 1, 8 [1981], rearg denied 54 N.Y.2d 832 [1981], cert denied 454 U.S. 854 [1981]; see People v Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286, 290 [1979]; People v Swain, 109 A.D.3d 1090, 1092 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 968 [2014]). Here, the court credited a detective's testimony that defendant let the officers inside his apartment after the detective knocked on the door (see People v McCrary, 152 A.D.2d 710, 711 [2d Dept 1989]; see generally People v Tucker, 149 A.D.3d 1261, 1263 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1087 [2017]). The court further credited the testimony of another detective that defendant's girlfriend consented to the police searching the apartment and determined that her consent was freely and voluntarily given (see Swain, 109 A.D.3d at 1092). "In reviewing a determination of the suppression court, great weight must be accorded its decision because of its ability to observe and assess the credibility of the witnesses, and its findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous" (People v Stokes, 212 A.D.2d 986, 987 [4th Dept 1995], lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 741 [1995]; see People v Mejia, 64 A.D.3d 1144, 1145 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 861 [2009]; see generally People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761 [1977]). The court's credibility determinations are supported by the record, and we see no basis to disturb them.
Defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or without merit.