Opinion
2015-07-02
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reid T. HOUSTON, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Cara A. Waldman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Cara A. Waldman of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02[3] ). County Court properly refused to suppress the weapon seized by the police pursuant to a search order authorizing the search of the apartment shared by defendant and a probationer. Contrary to defendant's contention, the affidavit submitted by the probation officer in support of his application for a search order provided the issuing court with “reasonable cause to believe that the [probationer had] violated a condition of [his] sentence” by using and possessing illegal drugs (CPL 410.50[3]; see People v. Borger, 57 A.D.3d 691, 691, 868 N.Y.S.2d 542), and the court therefore properly issued an order authorizing the search of the premises where the probationer resided ( see Borger, 57 A.D.3d at 691, 868 N.Y.S.2d 542; People v. Dawson, 73 A.D.2d 979, 980, 423 N.Y.S.2d 554, appeal dismissed51 N.Y.2d 1005, 435 N.Y.S.2d 981, 417 N.E.2d 93). In view of defendant's failure to provide sufficient factual support for his allegation that the search order was not supported by reasonable cause to believe that the probationer had violated a condition of his sentence, the court properly concluded that a hearing was not required ( see generally People v. Vanness, 106 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 965 N.Y.S.2d 227, lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 1044, 981 N.Y.S.2d 378, 4 N.E.3d 390; People v. Jenkins, 64 A.D.3d 993, 994, 882 N.Y.S.2d 583).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.