| People v Danclair |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03970 [139 AD3d 541] |
| May 19, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Abraham Danclair, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Antoine Morris ofcounsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Rebecca Hausner of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), renderedJune 27, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of3
The court properly denied defendant's motions to controvert the search warrant thatled to the recovery of drugs and weapons from the single-family private dwelling wheredefendant lived.
The warrant described the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity, andsince there was only one dwelling unit, there is no merit to defendant's argument that thewarrant was required to specify the part of the house to be searched (see People v Cook, 108 AD3d1107 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013]). Regardless of thefact that a 1962 certificate of occupancy permitted the location to be configured as atwo-family house, and regardless of how it might have been configured at some point inthe past, the warrant affidavit and the testimony presented at a hearing on one ofdefendant's motions to controvert established that the house was configured as asingle-family dwelling. Among other things, there was a single front door and a singlekitchen.
The warrant was supported by probable cause, based on information provided by twoinformants. As to each informant, both prongs of the test derived from Aguilar vTexas (378 US [*2]108 [1964]) and Spinelli vUnited States (393 US 410 [1969]) were satisfied, and defendant's arguments to thecontrary are unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Webber,JJ.