Opinion
October 27, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Amaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the affidavit submitted in connection with the application for a search warrant contained material inaccuracies which necessitate invalidation of the warrant. We disagree. It is a settled principle that "the underlying documents that support issuance of a warrant should be interpreted in a commonsense manner rather than hypertechnically" (People v Sinatra, 102 A.D.2d 189, 190; see also, People v Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549). Viewed in this manner, it is clear that in the police officer's affidavit made in connection with the warrant application he did not intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth falsely state that the complainant's knowledge of the defendant's residence was based upon her personal knowledge (see, Franks v Delaware, 438 U.S. 154; cf. United States v Davis, 714 F.2d 896).
We also disagree with the defendant's further contention that the search warrant which, inter alia, authorized a search for "drugs", was overbroad (see, People v Sinatra, 102 A.D.2d 189, 191, supra; People v Germaine, 87 A.D.2d 848; People v Yusko, 45 A.D.2d 1043).
The defendant next contends that the verdict convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree is inconsistent with and repugnant to the verdict acquitting him of rape in the first degree. Contrary to the defendant's contention, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law. As there was a bench trial, such a claim should have been raised by moving to set aside or modify the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (see, People v Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see, People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 6; People v Alfaro, supra).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without substance. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.