| People v Ewart |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06364 [130 AD3d 1062] |
| July 29, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rod T. Ewart, Appellant. |
Bruce R. Bekritsky, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King ofcounsel; Gregory J. Klubok on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Donnino, J.), rendered August 29, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree,criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, operating a motor vehicle in excessof a posted speed limit in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180-a,failing to signal for a change of lane in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1163 (d), and operating a motor vehicle without a license, upon his pleaof guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions (Ayres, J.), of the suppression ofphysical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in declining tosuppress physical evidence that was discovered in the course of an inventory search ofhis vehicle. At the suppression hearing, the People demonstrated that a New York StateTrooper lawfully stopped the defendant's vehicle on the date of the search, based on thetrooper's observation of the defendant's commission of traffic violations (seeVehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1163 [d]; 1180-a; see also People v Leiva, 33AD3d 1021, 1022 [2006]). Upon learning that the defendant did not have a validdriver license, and that there was no other licensed driver in the vehicle, the trooperlawfully impounded the vehicle (see People v Banton, 28 AD3d 571 [2006]; People v Cochran, 22 AD3d677 [2005]; People vFigueroa, 6 AD3d 720, 722 [2004]). At that point, the trooper was entitled toconduct an inventory search of the vehicle, and the People showed that the inventorysearch was properly conducted pursuant to established procedures and rules of the NewYork State Police, including the completion of an inventory form (see People v Taylor, 92 AD3d961, 962 [2012]; People vCochran, 22 AD3d 677 [2005]) that created a "usable inventory" of the contentsof the vehicle (People vJohnson, 1 NY3d 252, 257 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, P.J., Hall,Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.