Majority
—Appeal by the de
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Assuming, arguendo, as found by Judge DeRiggi on reargument, that the initial stop of the defendant after he exited the front door of the complainant’s house was unlawful, any taint attributable to that encounter was attenuated when the complainant immediately came out of the house and informed the police that she did not know the defendant and that she did not know why he was in her house (see, People v Paden, 158 AD2d 554 , 555). The complainant’s statement provided probable cause for the defendant’s arrest.
Further, the trial court’s Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269 , 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282 , 292; People v McClam, 225 AD2d 799 ). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Paden 158 AD2d 554 at 555 p. 400
- People v. Mattiace 77 NY2d 269 at 275-276 p. 400
- People v. Pavao 59 NY2d 282 at 292 p. 400
- People v. McClam 225 AD2d 799 p. 400