PEOPLE v. LOVE (2000)

 Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence.   The court's findings of credibility are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed where, as here, they are supported by the record (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380;  People v. Little, 259 A.D.2d 1031, 688 N.Y.S.2d 313, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 926, 693 N.Y.S.2d 510, 715 N.E.2d 513).   The court properly determined that defendant gave police permission to “check” his residence for suspects or victims of an attempted burglary and that the police did not exceed the scope of that authority when they observed cocaine on a kitchen counter.   While consent to “check” is not consent to search (see, e.g., People v. Saunders, 161 A.D.2d 1202, 555 N.Y.S.2d 529;  People v. Lazarus, 159 A.D.2d 1027, 552 N.Y.S.2d 722, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 738, 558 N.Y.S.2d 900, 557 N.E.2d 1196;  People v. Guzman, 153 A.D.2d 320, 323-324, 551 N.Y.S.2d 709, lv. granted 75 N.Y.2d 926, 555 N.Y.S.2d 45, 554 N.E.2d 82), we conclude that the police did not conduct a search.   Rather, the police were lawfully present in the kitchen where they observed the drugs in plain view (see, People v. Diaz, 81 N.Y.2d 106, 110, 595 N.Y.S.2d 940, 612 N.E.2d 298;  People v. Spoto, 187 A.D.2d 1017, 593 N.Y.S.2d 476, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 893, 597 N.Y.S.2d 955, 613 N.E.2d 987).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: