Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth DepartmentDec 31, 1997
245 A.D.2d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
245 A.D.2d 1086666 N.Y.S.2d 86

December 31, 1997

Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress his statement to the police following his arrest. The evidence at the suppression hearing supports the court's determination that the statement was spontaneous and not the result of police interrogation or its functional equivalent ( see, People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 479-480, rearg denied 57 N.Y.2d 775; People v. Latterell, 224 A.D.2d 1023, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 850). The court also properly denied the motion to suppress tangible evidence seized following warrantless searches of the basement of the building where defendant resided with his family and an apartment across the street from his residence. The evidence supports the court's determination that the police obtained the consent of defendant's mother to search the basement ( see, People v. Davis, 120 A.D.2d 606, 606-607, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 769) and that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the apartment ( see, People v. Delgado, 204 A.D.2d 242, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 825).

We reject the contention that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender status. Defendant was not eligible for youthful offender treatment because he was convicted of an armed felony, there are no mitigating circumstances bearing directly on the manner in which the crime was committed and defendant's participation in the crime was not relatively minor ( see, CPL 720.10 [a]; [3]; People v. Patterson, 195 A.D.2d 976, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 757). The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.)