Court Opinion

ID: 9876084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:50:18.670349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:38.356424
License: Public Domain

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.