People v Isaacs

People v Isaacs 2012 NY Slip Op 09086 Decided on December 26, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 26, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-06513
(Ind. No. 2933/10)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, appellant,

v

Kareem Isaacs, respondent.




Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Gary
Fidel and Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for appellant.
Barry S. Turner, New York, N.Y., for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), dated April 14, 2011, as granted those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The defendant's affidavit, in which he stated that he lived in an apartment with his fiancée, established that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment and, thus, had standing to challenge the search of the apartment and the seizure of a gun (see Minnesota v Carter, 525 US 83, 88-89; People v Adams, 244 AD2d 897, 898). Moreover, in light of the hearing court's particular credibility findings as to the People's witnesses, which we find are supported by the record, the court properly granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun that was found in his girlfriend's purse. Given the attendant circumstances, the search of the purse was outside the scope of the protective sweep permitted in executing the bench warrant that was the basis for the defendant's arrest (see Maryland v Buie, 494 US 325, 334-335; People v Hernandez, 218 AD2d 167; United States v Gandia, 424 F3d 255, 261-262, cert denied 555 US 930; cf. People v Eddo, 55 AD3d 922, 923). Additionally, the hearing court correctly granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement regarding his ownership of the gun, as that statement was fruit of the poisonous tree (see People v Holmes, 89 AD3d 1491, 1492).
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court