People v. Trotter, 224 A.D.2d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
People v. Trotter, 224 A.D.2d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Fleming (nyappdiv, 2018-12-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fleming
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to establish standing to challenge the seizure of the gun because he did not demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place where the gun was found ( see People v Trotter , 224 AD2d 1013, 1013 [4th Dept 1996]; see generally People v Sweat , 159 AD3d 1423 , 1423-1424 [4th Dept 2018]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Hunter
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
The allegations in defense counsel’s supporting affirmation concerning defendant’s expectation of privacy in the [apartment] served only to raise standing as an issue of fact and avoid summary judgment under CPL 710.60 (3)” (People v Washington, 39 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 870 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; cf. People v Telfer, 175 AD2d 638 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1130 [1991]; see generally People v Trotter, 224 AD2d 1013 [1996]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Nunez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the court properly refused to suppress the physical evidence seized from the victim’s apartment inasmuch as he failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he had standing to challenge the search of the apartment, i.e., that he possessed “a personal legitimate expectation of privacy” therein (People v Whitfield, 81 NY2d 904, 906 [1993]; see People v Trotter, 224 AD2d 1013 [1996]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Washington
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
“At a suppression hearing, a defendant has the burden of establishing standing by demonstrating a personal legitimate expectation of privacy” in the searched premises (People v Whitfield, 81 NY2d 904, 905-906 [1993]; see People v Trotter, 224 AD2d 1013 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Marcus Trotter
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 2, 1996.
224 A.D.2d 1013
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1669
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

—Order unanimously reversed on the law, motion to suppress denied and matter remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings on indictment. Memorandum: County Court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress a gun seized from defendant in a bedroom located at 526 Monroe Street, Buffalo. Defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing that he had standing "by demonstrating a personal legitimate expectation of privacy” (People v Whitfield, 81 NY2d 904, 906; see also, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351). To sustain that burden, defendant was not required either to testify or to present evidence on the issue of standing; he was entitled to rely on evidence elicited during the People’s direct case and during cross-examination by defense counsel of the People’s witnesses (see, People v Whitfield, supra, at 906; People v Wesley, supra, at 358, n 1; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 950, 951). Furthermore, hearsay evidence is admissible to establish standing (see, CPL 710.60 [4]; People v Gonzalez, supra, at 951).

Here, the sole witness at the suppression hearing was the ar[*1014] resting officer, who testified for the People that, after defendant was arrested, defendant stated that he lived at 466 Best Street in the City of Buffalo, not at 526 Monroe Street. Additionally, the officer testified that the occupant of 526 Monroe Street stated that the bedroom where the gun was seized belonged to her son. No other proof was adduced regarding the issue of standing.

Thus, the record is insufficient as a matter of law to support the conclusion of the court that defendant has standing to challenge the seizure of the gun. Defendant’s affidavit was not admitted into evidence and it served only to "raise standing as an issue of fact and avoid summary judgment under CPL 710.60 (3)” (People v Whitfield, supra, at 906). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — Suppress Evidence.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.