for agents to assume that owner of apartment had authority to grant consent to search adult tenant’s unlocked bedroom). Although plaintiff asserts that she was the owner of the guns, Florence Ostroski signed the receipts regarding the seized weapons, and so the defendant officers reasonably believed that she was permitting them to seize the guns. See Perez, 948 F.Supp. at 1201 (finding seizure of items reasonable, where owner of house displayed apparent authority to authorize seizure by signing receipts). Since the defendant officers had the reasonable belief that they had obtained sufficient consent for the search and seizure of the guns, they are at the very least entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. See, e.g. Ehrlich v. Town of Glastonbury, 348 F.3d 48, 61 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Simms v. Village of Albion, N.Y.,
holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity 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 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 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know the residence for which they obtained a warrant actually contained multiple units