THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. ERIC SANTIAGO (2026)

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Rina V. DeFrancesco of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Joseph P. Tucker of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Audrey E. Stone, J. at motion to controvert and suppression hearing;  Seth A. Steed, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered March 15, 2024, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 31/212 years, followed by three years of postrelease supervision on each count, unanimously affirmed.

The record supports the court's conclusion that the warrantless entry into defendant's apartment was justified under the emergency doctrine (see People v. Doll, 21 NY3d 665, 671 [2013], cert denied 572 U.S. 1022 [2014];  People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173, 177–178 [1976], cert denied 426 U.S. 953 [1976] ).  The officers received a 911 call reporting that someone was shot in the building;  found a bullet on the floor in the caller's apartment which, based on its trajectory, appeared to have originated from defendant's apartment directly overhead;  and detected the odor of gunpowder coming from defendant's apartment, indicating that a firearm was recently discharged from within that unit.  Additionally, the officers reasonably found that defendant's affirmative response to the officers' question whether “everything” was “okay” and defendant's statement that he was simply “watching TV” were suspicious in light of the surrounding circumstances and “contradicted by [the] information known to police” (People v. May, 135 AD3d 598, 599 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1002 [2016] ).  “Thus, the police were confronted with a serious danger that defendant was concealing the full details of the shooting, and that another victim or victims might be in his apartment” (id.;  see People v. DePaula, 179 A.D.2d 424, 426 [1st Dept 1992] ).  Accordingly, defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized as the result of that search, including the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant that was subsequently issued, was properly denied.

The record also supports the court's finding that the search of the fire escape was reasonable.  The police were informed someone was recently shot and therefore searched areas where an injured person could have been located, and they observed a gun on the fire escape in plain view (see People v. Paulino, 216 A.D.2d 238, 238 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 849 [1995] ).

Defendant argues that even if the search of the fire escape was authorized under either the emergency or plain view exception,the warrantless search of the bag located on the fire escape was unlawful because it occurred after any exigency abated.  However, the minimal intrusion of the police officer's night stick into the top of the bag was reasonably necessary for the police to determine that the bag's contents did not pose an immediate safety risk to the officers who were securing the scene pending issuance of

the search warrant (see People v. Jenkins, 233 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2024], lv. denied 45 NY3d 946 [2026] ).

We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision.

The Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on June 2, 2026 is hereby recalled and vacated (see M–3886 decided simultaneously herewith).