PEOPLE v. ETIENNE (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heidi C. Cesare, J.), rendered August 8, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a firearm, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence obtained in the execution thereof.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged with, inter alia, criminal possession of a firearm based upon the recovery by the police of a revolver during the execution of a search warrant.  The defendant filed an omnibus motion, among other things, to controvert the search warrant and to suppress the physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.  The Supreme Court denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion.  The defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm.

We decline to grant the defendant's request to direct the disclosure of the unredacted search warrant application and minutes of an examination pursuant to CPL 690.40(1) because the Supreme Court properly determined that “the redactions to the search warrant application and ․ minutes were necessary to protect the anonymity of the confidential informant and to protect him or her from danger” (People v. Hedrington, 186 A.D.3d 1245, 1245–1246, 127 N.Y.S.3d 877;  see People v. Fraser, 210 A.D.3d 697, 698, 177 N.Y.S.3d 639).

Further, upon a review of the unredacted search warrant application and hearing minutes, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to controvert the search warrant and to suppress the physical evidence seized in the execution thereof (see People v. Fraser, 210 A.D.3d at 698, 177 N.Y.S.3d 639).  “To establish probable cause, a search warrant application must provide sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place” (People v. Murray, 136 A.D.3d 714, 714, 24 N.Y.S.3d 194 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Boothe, 188 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 132 N.Y.S.3d 873).  Here, there was probable cause to issue the subject search warrant (see People v. Fraser, 210 A.D.3d at 698, 177 N.Y.S.3d 639;  People v. Rose, 207 A.D.3d 664, 665, 170 N.Y.S.3d 498;  People v. Bryant, 195 A.D.3d 744, 745, 145 N.Y.S.3d 380).  Moreover, the information provided to the judge who issued the warrant was sufficient to justify a no-knock provision in the warrant (see CPL 690.35[4][b];  People v. Rose, 207 A.D.3d at 665, 170 N.Y.S.3d 498;  People v. Israel, 161 A.D.2d 730, 731, 555 N.Y.S.2d 865;  People v. Garzia, 56 A.D.2d 635, 391 N.Y.S.2d 697).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674;  People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT and WAN, JJ., concur.