defendant lacked standing challenge in New York

2001The defendant lacked standing to challenge the search as he failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room (see generally, People v Rodriguez, 69 NY2d 159 ; People v Lerhinan, 90 AD2d 74 ).

1994Under these circumstances, the hearing court’s determination that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the basement and the seizure of the drugs therefrom was proper (see, People v Rodriguez, supra).

1990Suppression of the physical evidence was properly denied as the defendant lacked standing to challenge the propriety of a search of the public area where he was found (see, People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160 ).

1987The defendant lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the seizure of items from the basement of the building since he failed to establish any possessory interest or legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to the basement (see, People v Rodriguez, 69 NY2d 159, 163 ; People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160, 166 ).

2018The People's contention that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the warrant authorizing the installation and use of the GPS device is unpreserved for appellate review, as the People did not raise this ground at the suppression hearing ( see People v Hunter , 17 NY3d 725, 726 ; People v Stith , 69 NY2d 313, 320 ; cf .

2011In People v Stith, this Court refused to consider the People’s argument that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the legality of the seizure of a weapon, noting that such argument “was raised for the first time at the Appellate Division and thus is not preserved for our review” ( 69 NY2d at 320 ).

2024The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree on the ground that, based on CPL 200.60(3), the County Court failed to follow the proper procedures for the use of a prior conviction to elevate the level of that charged crime (Penal Law § 265.02[5][ii]) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Finger , 95 NY2d 894, 895 ; People v Allen , 107 AD3d 818, 819 ; People v Ward , 57 AD3d 582, 583 ) and, in any event, without merit because the defendant raised his prior convic

2024The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree on the ground that, based on CPL 200.60(3), the County Court failed to follow the proper procedures for the use of a prior conviction to elevate the level of that charged crime (Penal Law § 265.02[5][ii]) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Finger , 95 NY2d 894, 895 ; People v Allen , 107 AD3d 818, 819 ; People v Ward , 57 AD3d 582, 583 ) and, in any event, without merit because the defendant raised his prior convic

2024The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree on the ground that, based on CPL 200.60(3), the County Court failed to follow the proper procedures for the use of a prior conviction to elevate the level of that charged crime (Penal Law § 265.02[5][ii]) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Finger , 95 NY2d 894, 895 ; People v Allen , 107 AD3d 818, 819 ; People v Ward , 57 AD3d 582, 583 ) and, in any event, without merit because the defendant raised his prior convic

2024Accordingly, the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the vehicle and the subsequent seizure of the firearm ( see id. ).

2020The People additionally argued that the defendant's statement was not fruit of the poisonous tree because the officers had probable cause for his arrest and the defendant was properly given Miranda warnings before he made the statement ( see Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436 ).

2019Accordingly, the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the vehicle and the subsequent seizure of the gun ( see People v White , 153 AD3d 1369, 1370 ; People v Oliver , 39 AD3d 880, 880-881 ).

2019Accordingly, the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the vehicle and the subsequent seizure of the gun ( see People v White , 153 AD3d 1369, 1370 ; People v Oliver , 39 AD3d 880, 880-881 ).

2018The People's contention that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the warrant authorizing the installation and use of the GPS device is unpreserved for appellate review, as the People did not raise this ground at the suppression hearing ( see People v Hunter , 17 NY3d 725, 726 ; People v Stith , 69 NY2d 313, 320 ; cf .

2017The defendant lacked standing to challenge the notice of the UCC foreclosure sale, as the defendant was neither the debtor nor a secondary obligor of the collateral (see UCC 9-611; cf. New Jersey Bank, N.A. v Varano, 120 AD2d 505 [1986]).

2017Although the People had argued on appeal that the existence of probable cause provided an alternative basis for upholding the ruling on the suppression motion and affirming the judgment of conviction, this Court was precluded from reviewing that issue on the defendant’s appeal because the Supreme Court did not decide that issue adversely to the defendant (see CPL *932 470.15 [1]; People v Ingram, 18 NY3d 948, 949 [2012]; People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 195 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 473-474 [1998]; People v Goodfriend, 64 NY2d 695 [1984]; People v Chazbani, 144 AD3d at 838 ).

2011Since our pronouncement in Stith , however, three of the four appellate departments have issued rulings counter to this holding, concluding that because it is the defendant’s initial burden to establish standing, the People may raise defendant’s lack of standing for the first time on appeal (see People v McCall, 51 AD3d 822, 822 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 856 [2008]; People v Hooper, 245 AD2d 1020, 1021 [4th Dept 1997]; People v Banks, 202 AD2d 902, 904 [3d Dept 1994], revd on other grounds 85 NY2d 558 [1995]; but see People v Graham, 211 AD2d 55, 57-58 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 86 NY2

2011Since our pronouncement in Stith , however, three of the four appellate departments have issued rulings counter to this holding, concluding that because it is the defendant’s initial burden to establish standing, the People may raise defendant’s lack of standing for the first time on appeal (see People v McCall, 51 AD3d 822, 822 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 856 [2008]; People v Hooper, 245 AD2d 1020, 1021 [4th Dept 1997]; People v Banks, 202 AD2d 902, 904 [3d Dept 1994], revd on other grounds 85 NY2d 558 [1995]; but see People v Graham, 211 AD2d 55, 57-58 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 86 NY2

2011Since our pronouncement in Stith , however, three of the four appellate departments have issued rulings counter to this holding, concluding that because it is the defendant’s initial burden to establish standing, the People may raise defendant’s lack of standing for the first time on appeal (see People v McCall, 51 AD3d 822, 822 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 856 [2008]; People v Hooper, 245 AD2d 1020, 1021 [4th Dept 1997]; People v Banks, 202 AD2d 902, 904 [3d Dept 1994], revd on other grounds 85 NY2d 558 [1995]; but see People v Graham, 211 AD2d 55, 57-58 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 86 NY2

2011Since our pronouncement in Stith , however, three of the four appellate departments have issued rulings counter to this holding, concluding that because it is the defendant’s initial burden to establish standing, the People may raise defendant’s lack of standing for the first time on appeal (see People v McCall, 51 AD3d 822, 822 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 856 [2008]; People v Hooper, 245 AD2d 1020, 1021 [4th Dept 1997]; People v Banks, 202 AD2d 902, 904 [3d Dept 1994], revd on other grounds 85 NY2d 558 [1995]; but see People v Graham, 211 AD2d 55, 57-58 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 86 NY2

2004In People v Paulino ( 216 AD2d 238 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1039 ), the First Department, citing Tejada , held that the defendant did not have automatic standing to contest the search and seizure of a room because the People relied on not only the room presumption contained in PL § 220.25(2) but also on the theory of constructive possession. [FN6] In People v Carter ( 199 AD2d 817 , aff'd 86 NY2d 721 , rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 ), the Third Department, citing Tejada , held that "automatic standing to challenge a search and seizure on constitutional grounds exists only where the criminal possessory c

2004In People v Paulino ( 216 AD2d 238 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1039 ), the First Department, citing Tejada , held that the defendant did not have automatic standing to contest the search and seizure of a room because the People relied on not only the room presumption contained in PL § 220.25(2) but also on the theory of constructive possession. [FN6] In People v Carter ( 199 AD2d 817 , aff'd 86 NY2d 721 , rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 ), the Third Department, citing Tejada , held that "automatic standing to challenge a search and seizure on constitutional grounds exists only where the criminal possessory c

2001His possession of a key to the room at the time of his arrest was insufficient to confer standing (see, People v Scott, 273 AD2d 76 ; People v Jose, 252 AD2d 401 , affd 94 NY2d 844 ; see also, United States v Gordon, 168 F3d 1222 , cert denied 572 US 1030 ), particularly as the room was not registered to him, and, in fact, he was registered in a different room.

2001His possession of a key to the room at the time of his arrest was insufficient to confer standing (see, People v Scott, 273 AD2d 76 ; People v Jose, 252 AD2d 401 , affd 94 NY2d 844 ; see also, United States v Gordon, 168 F3d 1222 , cert denied 572 US 1030 ), particularly as the room was not registered to him, and, in fact, he was registered in a different room.