| People v Bradley |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01251 [59 AD3d 806] |
| February 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Colin G.Bradley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Thomas D. Jackson of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered September 12, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Following sales of crack cocaine to a confidential informant in the City of Binghamton,Broome County, the Binghamton Police Department applied for and obtained a search warrantfrom City Court authorizing a search of defendant's apartment. Upon executing the searchwarrant, the police discovered, among other things, a quantity of cocaine and a scale indefendant's apartment. A four-count indictment was subsequently handed up and, thereafter,defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his apartment, arguing that the warrantwas not supported by probable cause. County Court denied defendant's motion. Defendant thenpleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree insatisfaction of the indictment and other charges outstanding against him and he was sentenced,as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 3½ years to be followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision. Contending that the search warrant issued by City Court was notsupported by probable cause, defendant now appeals.
We affirm. The warrant application, together with an affidavit from the disclosedconfidential informant, alleges sufficient activity to support a reasonable belief that contraband[*2]would be found at defendant's apartment (see CPL690.40 [2]; People v Pinchback, 82 NY2d 857, 858 [1993]; People v Lee, 303AD2d 839, 840 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 622 [2003]; People v Middleton,283 AD2d 663, 665 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 922 [2001]). Thus, County Courtproperly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the searchconducted pursuant to the warrant.
Cardona, P.J., Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.