People v. El
Docket 2020-01859
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02415
- Docket
- 2020-01859
Appeal from a judgment convicting defendant after a guilty plea and from denial, without a hearing, of branches of his omnibus motion to controvert a search warrant and suppress evidence.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the defendant's conviction for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following a guilty plea and sentence. The defendant had challenged the search warrant and sought disclosure of an unredacted warrant application and hearing minutes to attack probable cause and the confidential informant's anonymity. The court upheld the trial court's redactions as necessary to protect the informant and, after reviewing the unredacted materials, concluded there was probable cause for the warrant and properly denied suppression of the recovered firearms.
Issues Decided
- Whether the defendant was entitled to disclosure of an unredacted search warrant application and hearing minutes under CPL 690.40(1).
- Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause to search the defendant's home for firearms.
- Whether suppression of the physical evidence seized in the execution of the warrant was required.
Court's Reasoning
The court concluded the trial court correctly redacted the warrant materials to preserve the confidential informant's anonymity and safety, relying on precedent recognizing that such redactions may be necessary. After reviewing the unredacted materials, the Appellate Division found the application supplied sufficient factual detail to support a reasonable belief that evidence of illegal activity would be present at the time and place searched, satisfying the probable cause standard, and therefore suppression was not warranted.
Authorities Cited
- People v Hedrington186 AD3d 1245
- CPL 690.40
- People v Lexune236 AD3d 1060
Parties
- Appellant
- Iraef El
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.
- Judge
- Linda Christopher
- Judge
- Lillian Wan
- Judge
- Donna-Marie E. Golia
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-22
- Judgment rendered / sentence
- 2019-09-04
- Appellate Division docket / decision number
- 2026-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking leave to appeal
If the defendant wishes to continue challenging the conviction or suppression ruling, counsel should evaluate and, if appropriate, file an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals within the required time limits.
- 2
Review sentencing and plea options
The defendant should consult defense counsel about potential collateral remedies, resentencing motions, or post-conviction relief if any statutory or constitutional issues remain.
- 3
Preserve record for further review
Ensure the trial and appellate records, including the unredacted warrant materials reviewed by the court, are preserved and included in any future appellate filings.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed the conviction and held that the warrant was supported by probable cause and that redactions to protect the confidential informant were proper.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The defendant, Iraef El, whose conviction and sentence were affirmed, and parties seeking disclosure of confidential informant identities in similar cases.
- Why were parts of the warrant application redacted?
- The court found the redactions necessary to protect the confidentiality and safety of the informant and consistent with precedent allowing such protection.
- Can this ruling be appealed further?
- The decision is from the Appellate Division; the defendant could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to applicable rules and deadlines.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v El - 2026 NY Slip Op 02415 People v El 2026 NY Slip Op 02415 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Iraef El, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2020-01859, (Ind. No. 6198/17) Lara J. Genovesi, J.P. Linda Christopher Lillian Wan Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Steven C. Kuza of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Michael Bierce of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sharen D. Hudson, J., at plea; Vincent Del Giudice, J., at sentence), rendered September 4, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (John T. Hecht, J.), without a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were, in effect, to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence obtained in the execution thereof. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. After the issuance of a search warrant based upon information obtained by a confidential informant, the police recovered three loaded firearms in the defendant's home. The defendant moved, inter alia, in effect, to controvert the search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof. The Supreme Court, among other things, denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion. The defendant thereafter entered a plea of guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The defendant appeals. We decline to grant the defendant's request to direct the disclosure of the unredacted search warrant application and minutes of an examination pursuant to CPL 690.40(1) because the Supreme Court properly found that "the redactions to the search warrant application and . . . minutes were necessary to protect the anonymity of the confidential informant and to protect him or her from danger" ( People v Hedrington , 186 AD3d 1245, 1245-1246; see People v Etienne , 235 AD3d 894, 894). Moreover, upon a review of the unredacted search warrant application and hearing minutes, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were, in effect, to controvert the search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof. "A search warrant must be supported by probable cause" ( People v Lexune , 236 AD3d 1060, 1061; see CPL 690.40). To establish probable cause, "[t]he search warrant application must provide the court with sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that evidence of illegal activity will be present at the specific time and place of the search" ( People v Rivera , 210 AD3d 805, 806 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, there was probable cause to issue the subject search warrant ( see People v Fraser , 210 AD3d 697, 698; People v Rose , 207 AD3d 664, 665; People v Bryant , 195 AD3d 744, 745). GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph