People v. DeMartino
This text of 82 A.D.3d 1260 (People v. DeMartino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of the defend[1261]*1261ant’s home (see People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d 280, 287 [2010]). The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the warrantless entry into the home was justified by a reasonable belief by the police that an emergency situation required their immediate assistance (see People v Molnar, 98 NY2d 328 [2002]; People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173 [1976], cert denied 426 US 953 [1976]; People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d at 287; People v Desmarat, 38 AD3d 913 [2007]; People v Manning, 301 AD2d 661 [2003]; People v DePaula, 179 AD2d 424 [1992]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied suppression of certain evidence later seized from the defendant’s garage pursuant to a search warrant. Although the search warrant failed to list the defendant’s garage as a place to be searched, the garage was referenced in the search warrant application and supporting documents (see People v Carpenter, 51 AD3d 1149 [2008]; People v Davenport, 231 AD2d 809 [1996]). Covello, J.E, Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
82 A.D.3d 1260, 919 N.Y.2d 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-demartino-nyappdiv-2011.