| People v Brucciani |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02026 [82 AD3d 1001] |
| March 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnBrucciani, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel; AmandaB. Haberman on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson,J.), rendered June 8, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of marijuana in the seconddegree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressphysical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied that branch of hisomnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence seized from his apartment pursuantto a search warrant. Although the defendant challenges the reliability of the hearsay informationprovided by a confidential informant in the search warrant application, that application amplydemonstrated the informant's reliability. The application recited that the confidential informantwas registered with the Rockland County Narcotics Task Force (hereinafter the Task Force) andhad been working with the Task Force since March 2009. Moreover, the application also recited,inter alia, that the informant, wearing an electronic listening and recording device, made twocontrolled buys of marijuana and attempted a third buy, all while under police supervision andsurveillance, and police investigators were able to substantially corroborate key details of thetransactions through their own observations (see People v Vargas, 72 AD3d 1114, 1115-1116 [2010]; Peoplev Tarver, 292 AD2d 110, 115 [2002]; People v Keyes, 291 AD2d 571 [2002];People v Williams, 247 AD2d 415, 416 [1998]; People v Lavere, 236 AD2d 809[1997]; People v Davenport, 231 AD2d 809, 810 [1996]; People v Miner, 126AD2d 798, 799-800 [1987]). Accordingly, the search warrant was properly upheld as valid.Angiolillo, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.