| People v Vann |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00989 [92 AD3d 702] |
| February 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kouriockien Vann, Also Known as Kouriockian Vann,Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky,and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.),rendered December 18, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminallyusing drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Theappeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Garnett, J.), of those branches of thedefendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made byhim to a parole officer.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The specific arguments the defendant makes to support his contention that the SupremeCourt erred in denying that branch of his motion which was to suppress physical evidence areunpreserved for appellate review, as they were not raised before the suppression court(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vInge, 90 AD3d 675 [2011]; People v Thompson, 27 AD3d 495 [2006]). In any event, thecontentions are without merit, as the search of his apartment was rationally and reasonablyrelated to the parole officer's duty to detect and prevent parole violations (see People vHuntley, 43 NY2d 175, 182-183 [1977]; People v Johnson, 54 AD3d 969 [2008]). Moreover, the paroleofficer did not act as an agent or conduit for the police in conducting the search. The paroleofficer initiated and conducted the search, which was in furtherance of parole purposes andrelated to his duties as a parole officer. Accordingly, the assistance of police officers at the scenedid not render the search a police operation (see People v Johnson, 54 AD3d at 970; People v Montero, 44 AD3d 796[2007]).
The specific argument the defendant now raises in support of his contention that the SupremeCourt erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements hemade during the search of his apartment is unpreserved for appellate review, as it was not raisedbefore the suppression court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cinto, 80 AD3d 775 [2011]). In any event, the argumentis without merit (see People vPaulman, 5 NY3d 122, 129 [2005]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 416 [2004],cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Borukhova, 89 AD3d 194, 211-213 [2011]; People vJohnson, 269 AD2d 405 [2000]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.