Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25) and other crimes and was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years. County Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress tangible evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. Based on the officer's uncontroverted testimony at the suppression hearing, the court properly determined that the entry into defendant's apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, i.e., the perception that an injured person might be in the apartment ( see, People v. Hodge, 44 N.Y.2d 553, 557; Matter of Pablo C., 220 A.D.2d 235, 235-236; People v DePaula, 179 A.D.2d 424, 426-427). The officer had reasonable grounds to believe than an emergency was at hand and a reasonable basis for associating that emergency with the area searched ( see, People v. Love, 84 N.Y.2d 917, 918-919; People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173, 177-179, cert denied 426 U.S. 953). Moreover, the officer entered the apartment for the specific purpose of assisting a potentially injured person, not to look for evidence of a crime ( see, People v. Love, supra, at 918-919; People v. Mitchell, supra, at 178-179). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have examined the contentions raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.