| People v Jenkins |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08034 [100 AD3d 924] |
| November 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Appellant, v Benjamin Jenkins, Respondent. |
—[*1] Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Allen Fallek of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Mangano, Jr., J.), dated June 23, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence is denied, and the matter isremitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that the police saw and heardgunfire on the roof an apartment building, heard gunfire in the stairwell of that building, andobserved the defendant, holding a gun, run into the subject apartment with a second man. Thesefacts support a determination that exigent circumstances existed which justified the entry of thepolice into the subject apartment and arresting the defendant there (see People v McBride, 14 NY3d440, 445 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 327 [2010]; People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d280, 287 [2010]; People v Miles, 210 AD2d 353 [1994]). Furthermore, thesecircumstances justified a warrantless search for the gun. The police knew that the gun was insidethe apartment, which had occupants other than the defendant (see People v Parker, 299AD2d 859 [2002]; People v Sanchez, 255 AD2d 614 [1998]; People v Johnson,181 AD2d 103 [1992], affd 81 NY2d 980 [1993]; People v Gordon, 110 AD2d778 [1985]; cf. People v Knapp, 52 NY2d 689 [1981]). The scope of the search wassufficiently limited by, and reasonably related to, the exigencies of the situation (see People v Dillon, 44 AD3d1068, 1070 [2007]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress physical evidence. Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ.,concur.