PEOPLE v. MULDROW (2000)

 County Court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress evidence seized during a search of his apartment.   Defendant lacks standing to challenge the entry by police officers into the common hallway area accessible to all tenants and their invitees (see, People v. Bilsky, 261 A.D.2d 174, 691 N.Y.S.2d 388, lv. dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 859, 704 N.Y.S.2d 534, 725 N.E.2d 1096;  Mauceri v. County of Suffolk, 234 A.D.2d 350, 650 N.Y.S.2d 788).   Contrary to defendant's contention, the court properly determined that the police officers did not approach defendant's brother with their handguns drawn and that defendant's brother voluntarily consented to the officers' entry into the apartment.   There is no basis in this record to disturb the court's resolution of those issues in the People's favor (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380).

 We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in determining that a prosecution witness was competent to provide sworn testimony.  “The resolution of the issue of witness competency is exclusively the responsibility of the trial court”, and the court's determination should be sustained where, as here, there is no “clear abuse of discretionary power” (People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 46, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, 359 N.E.2d 358).

 Although the court erred in admitting two hearsay statements, the error is harmless;  the proof of defendant's guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that defendant otherwise would have been acquitted (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: