PEOPLE v. SANTOS (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cori Weston, J., at suppression hearing;  Maxwell Wiley, J., at plea;  Ann D. Thompson, J., at sentencing), rendered August 22, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a prison term of seven years followed by five years of post-release supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The suppression court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the firearm that police officers found tucked inside his waistband at the time of his arrest (see People v. Wheeler, 2 NY3d 370, 374 [2004] ).  The People carried their burden through the testimony of a police officer who, a few days before the arrest, while responding to defendant's brother's complaint that defendant had assaulted him, heard the brother tell other officers that defendant had physically struck him and damaged his vehicle.  That the officer did not speak directly with the defendant's brother but rather heard him did not prevent the officer from testifying to these facts as his personal knowledge (see Matter of Christopher P., 260 A.D.2d 212, 213 [1st Dept 1999] ).  Defendant's brother also gave a physical description of defendant at that time, and the officer saw defendant pictured on an I-card, with a photograph of him and the same pedigree information, stating that he was wanted for a prior assault.  Thus, notwithstanding that the People did not introduce additional evidence such as the officer's body-worn camera, they established that the officer had “information sufficient to support a reasonable belief” (People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423 [1985] ) that the individual he arrested was defendant and that defendant had committed the acts described by his brother (see People v. Colon, 187 AD3d 647, 648 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1096 [2021] ).  The totality of these circumstances provided probable cause for defendant's arrest (see People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d at 423 [1985];  People v. Ortiz, 233 AD3d 628, 629 [1st Dept 2024], lv granted 45 NY3d 947 [2026] ).  Given that the officer had probable cause to believe that defendant committed the acts described by his brother, coupled with his also having overheard defendant's stepfather state at the scene of the assault that defendant was known to carry a gun, the officer had a reasonable basis to search defendant (see People v. Cooke, 217 AD3d 425, 425 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1012 [2023] ).

Defendant has standing to assert his facial constitutional challenge to New York's “good moral character” provision of its gun licensing scheme (Penal Law § 400.00.[1] ) in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 U.S. 1 [2022] ) (see People v. Johnson, ––– NY3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op 06528, *5 [2025], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 2026 WL 1780086 [June 22, 2026] ).  However, defendant failed to preserve that claim because he failed to challenge the good moral character provision in his motion to dismiss the indictment (see id. at *4), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we reject defendant's challenge to the good moral character provision on the merits (see People v. Martinez, 238 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1067 [2026] ).