| People v Isaacs |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 09086 [101 AD3d 1152] |
| December 26, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v KareemIsaacs, Respondent. |
—[*1] Barry S. Turner, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Latella, J.), dated April 14, 2011, as granted those branches of thedefendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made bythe defendant to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.
The defendant's affidavit, in which he stated that he lived in an apartment with his fiancee,established that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment and, thus,had standing to challenge the search of the apartment and the seizure of a gun (see Minnesotav Carter, 525 US 83, 88-89 [1998]; People v Adams, 244 AD2d 897, 898 [1997]).Moreover, in light of the hearing court's particular credibility findings as to the People'switnesses, which we find are supported by the record, the court properly granted that branch ofthe defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun that was found in his girlfriend'spurse. Given the attendant circumstances, the search of the purse was outside the scope of theprotective sweep permitted in executing the bench warrant that was the basis for the defendant'sarrest (see Maryland v Buie, 494 US 325, 334-335 [1990]; People v Hernandez,218 AD2d 167 [1996]; United States v Gandia, 424 F3d 255, 261-262 [2005], certdenied 555 US 930 [2008]; cf.People v Eddo, 55 AD3d 922, 923 [2008]). Additionally, the hearing court correctlygranted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statementregarding his ownership of the gun, as that statement was fruit of the poisonous tree (see People v Holmes, 89 AD3d1491, 1492 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.