People v. Santiago

possession of a weapon and dangerous instrument and appliance, as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review a decision of the same court, dated April 3, 1974, which denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion the determination of the suppression motion is governed by the decisions in People v Hansen ( 47 AD2d 545 ), People v Coscia ( 26 AD2d 649 ), People v Valentine ( 17 NY2d 128 ) and People v Smith ( 21 NY2d 698 ) People v Fino ( 14 NY2d 160 ), upon which appellant relies, is inapposite. There the police merely observed several alleged bookmakers enter a private dwelling in which there were two unlisted telephones. They had nothing further upon which to base their claims that bookmaking was being carried on in the premises. A reading of the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued in this case in a "commonsense and realistic fashion”, as opposed to a "hypertechnicsil” manner, demonstrates that it is sufficient (United States v Ventresca, 380 US 102 , 108, 109). Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.