Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shawn J. Sivertson, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-06-01
Citations: 29 N.Y.3d 1006
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn J. Sivertson, Appellant.
Judges: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur; Judge Rivera dissents in an opinion in which Judge Stein concurs.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 1006–1016

Head Matter:
[77 NE3d 349, 54 NYS3d 632]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn J. Sivertson, Appellant.
Argued January 3, 2017;
reargued March 22, 2017;
decided June 1, 2017
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
David C. Schopp, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy and Barbara J. Davies of counsel), for appellant.
Michael J. Flaherty, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Lowry and Michael J. Hillery of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorándum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The conclusion that the warrantless entry by police into defendant's home was justified by exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. Where, as here, there is support in the record for the Appellate Division's conclusion, the issue is beyond our further review (see People v Gibson, 24 NY3d 1125, 1126 [2015]; People v Brown, 95 NY2d 942, 943 [2000]; People v Hallman, 92 NY2d 840, 842 [1998]). "The rule applies 'where the facts are disputed . or where reasonable minds may differ as to the inference to be drawn [from the established facts]' " (People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477 [1982], quoting People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 601 [1980]). The dissent's conclusion to the contrary is based on a narrative derived from the suppression hearing record that unduly emphasizes the testimony and resulting inferences that are favorable to defendant.
Defendant's remaining contention is without merit.