does not contest the fact that Florence Ostroski was the owner of the premises. (See Plaintiffs 56.1 Statement, ¶ 5.) Defendants point to uncontested evidence in the record indicating that Florence Ostroski specifically requested that the officers seize and remove the guns. (See Biancanello Aff., Ex. G. at vol. 1., p. 150, 172; vol. 2, p. 38.) It was reasonable for the defendant officers to believe that Florence Ostroski had the authority to consent to a search of the upstairs to retrieve the guns, based upon the fact that they knew that she was the owner of the house, and since she had access to the area search, as exhibited by her knowledge of the location of the weapons. See United States v. Perez, 948 F.Supp. 1191, 1201 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (finding it reaso F.3d 1098, 1109 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Alternatively, the search and seizure was
holding that a warrant was needed to perform an administrative search upon private property holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law where they relied upon consent of property owner to perform search holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search