People v. Gray, 56 Misc. 3d 1045

Defendant (owner) charged with 17 Village Building Code violations for operating an apparent multi-room rental/boarding use out of a single-family home at 632 Nelson Place, Westbury, NY.
Inspectors allege rental listings and online reviews showed commercial short-term rentals (bed-and-breakfast/rooms), no rental permit or required licenses, and multiple safety/code defects (egress, smoke detectors, electrical/plumbing, cellar as habitable space, pool/spa, no handrails).
Defendant moved to suppress evidence and dismiss, claiming warrantless/illegal search by Building Inspectors and alleging racial discrimination by Village enforcement.
People produced inspector affidavits, identification, contemporaneous Internet research linking listings to the address, and photographs of the interior; they argued entry was consensual and inspectors had probable cause.
Court denied suppression/dismissal (inspector affidavits credited); found defendant’s affidavits insufficient and largely hearsay; but sua sponte suppressed undisclosed recorded statements under CPL 710.30.
Court further held, as a point of first impression for this local court, that (1) CPL 710.30 notice is required for admission of defendant statements and (2) building inspectors who decide to charge must give Miranda warnings before recording statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of warrantless entry/search	Inspectors: entry was consensual; probable cause from online ads justified inspection	Gray: entry was warrantless and illegal; suppress evidence under Mapp	Court credited inspectors; no suppression of physical/evidence photos; no suppression hearing required
Sufficiency of affidavits supporting suppression motion	People: inspector affidavit and exhibits establish probable cause and consent	Gray: his affidavit and witness affidavit claim forcible banging and no warrant	Court found defendant affidavits incompetent/hearsay and insufficient; denied motion
Alleged selective/prosecutorial discrimination	People: enforcement applied under local code neutrally	Gray: claims racial discrimination and selective enforcement	Court rejected bald allegations as unsupported and hearsay; not considered without nexus
Use and disclosure of defendant statements at trial	People: sought to use statements and recordings	Gray: implicitly challenges admissibility without notice	Court suppressed recordings/statements for late CPL 710.30 disclosure; required CPL 710.30 compliance
Miranda warnings by non-police inspectors	People: did not give Miranda; argued not required	Gray: would argue statements taken without warnings	Court held, as first impression locally, that when an inspector decides to charge, Miranda warnings must be given before eliciting statements

McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bay, 66 N.Y.2d 544 (N.Y. 1985) (definition of “family” for zoning and single-family occupancy rules)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (exclusionary rule for unlawful searches and seizures)
Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1979) (probable cause and custody standards for detention and interrogation)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree and derivative evidence doctrine)
People v. Gethers, 86 N.Y.2d 159 (N.Y. 1995) (application of exclusionary rule and derivative evidence principles in state prosecutions)
People v. Scully, 14 N.Y.3d 861 (N.Y. 2010) (standards for holding suppression hearings)
People v. Becker, 20 N.Y. 354 (N.Y. 1859) (historic authority on affidavit sufficiency—cited for threshold standards)
People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. 1986) (CPL 710.30 notice requirements for use of defendant statements)
People v. O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479 (N.Y. 1987) (CPL 710.30 and disclosure obligations regarding defendant statements)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (requirement to advise of rights prior to custodial interrogation)