Opinion
February 27, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
On appeal, the defendants contend that the County Court erred in denying the branch of their omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence because the police violated Payton v New York ( 445 U.S. 573), by arresting the defendant Robert Schiavo inside his home without a warrant. We disagree. Although Payton prohibits the police from crossing the threshold of a suspect's home to effect a warrantless arrest absent exigent circumstances or the suspect's consent to police entry (see, Payton v. New York, supra; People v. Minley, 68 N.Y.2d 952), the doorway to a private residence has been held to be a public place for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis because a defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy while standing in his doorway exposed to public view (see, United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38; People v. Francis, 209 A.D.2d 539; People v. Min Chul Shin, 200 A.D.2d 770; People v. Nonni, 141 A.D.2d 862). The record amply supports the hearing court's finding that Schiavo voluntarily came to the front door of his residence after his niece informed him that the police had arrived to arrest him, and that the arrest was effectuated in the doorway. Accordingly, Schiavo's arrest did not implicate Payton rights (see, People v. Francis, supra; People v. Min Chul Shin, supra; People v. Rosario, 179 A.D.2d 442). In any event, we note that contrary to Schiavo's assertion, the hearing record further supports the court's conclusion that he consented to allow the officers to enter his residence while he dressed (see, People v. Rosario, supra; People v. Nonni, supra).
The defendants' further contention that their statutory right to a speedy trial was violated by the People's postreadiness delay in submitting the Grand Jury minutes to the County Court for its inspection is unpreserved for appellate review since this delay occurred after the defendants filed their speedy trial motion, and is raised for the first time on appeal (see, People v. Bacchi, 186 A.D.2d 663). In any event, the People's production of the Grand Jury minutes within 18 days of the defendants' motion for inspection was reasonable, and, consequently, this period of delay is not chargeable to the People (see, People v Harris, 82 N.Y.2d 409).
In addition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the value of the stolen automobile parts in the defendants' possession exceeded $1,000, and that the defendants' guilt of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree was thus established beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We further find that the sentence imposed upon Schiavo was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780). Pizzuto, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.