defendant has standing challenge in New York

1995A defendant has standing to challenge a search which results in the seizure of contraband only if he demonstrates "a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises” (People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 357 ; see also, CPL 710.60; People v Tejada, 81 NY2d 861, 863 ).

1991The defendant has standing to challenge the legality of the search of the codefendant’s apartment in which he was present, because he was charged under the statutory presumption of possession of Penal Law § 220.25 (2) (see, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 360 ; People v Millan, 69 NY2d 514 ).

2026Moreover, the defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of these statutes ( see People v Johnson , ___ NY3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528 ).

2026Moreover, the defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of these statutes ( see People v Johnson , ___ NY3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528).

2023The cases relied on by the prosecution and the Attorney General Intervenor are both civil injunction licensure cases, rather than criminal cases, and are accordingly distinguishable (Allen v Wright, 468 US 737 [1984]; Moose Lodge No. 107 v Irvis, 407 US 163, 166-168 [1972]).

2009(See United States v Sued, 143 F Supp 2d 346 [SD NY 2001].) Nevertheless, “[i]n the area of freedom of expression it is well established that one has standing to challenge a statute on the ground that it delegates overly broad licensing discretion to an administrative office, whether or not his conduct could be proscribed by a properly drawn statute, and whether or not he applied for a license.” (Freedman v Maryland, 380 US 51, 56 [1965]; see also Lovell v City of Griffin, 303 US 444 [1938].) Accordingly, the defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Code on its face.

2005Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant has standing to challenge the seizure of the DVDs and watches recovered from his person (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99 [1996]) and has raised a factual dispute which requires a hearing for resolution.

2003Once pertinent speech in court or to a recognized participant in an ongoing judicial proceeding is established, virtually every speaker whose speech is connected with the litigation has standing to assert this immunity from suit (Herzfeld & Stern v Beck, 175 AD2d 689 [1st Dept 1991], appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 914 [1992], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 789 [1993]). “[T]he . . . privilege attaches ... to every step of the proceeding in question even if it is preliminary and/or investigatory” (175 AD2d at 691) and is extended “to all who take part in judicial proceedings, judge, attorney, counsel, printer,

2003Once pertinent speech in court or to a recognized participant in an ongoing judicial proceeding is established, virtually every speaker whose speech is connected with the litigation has standing to assert this immunity from suit (Herzfeld & Stern v Beck, 175 AD2d 689 [1st Dept 1991], appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 914 [1992], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 789 [1993]). “[T]he . . . privilege attaches ... to every step of the proceeding in question even if it is preliminary and/or investigatory” (175 AD2d at 691) and is extended “to all who take part in judicial proceedings, judge, attorney, counsel, printer,

2003Once pertinent speech in court or to a recognized participant in an ongoing judicial proceeding is established, virtually every speaker whose speech is connected with the litigation has standing to assert this immunity from suit (Herzfeld & Stern v Beck, 175 AD2d 689 [1st Dept 1991], appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 914 [1992], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 789 [1993]). “[T]he . . . privilege attaches ... to every step of the proceeding in question even if it is preliminary and/or investigatory” (175 AD2d at 691) and is extended “to all who take part in judicial proceedings, judge, attorney, counsel, printer,

1998Addressing these seriatim, the defendant has standing to challenge the stop of a vehicle in which he was no more than a passenger (People v May, 81 NY2d 725 ; People v Matthew, 228 AD2d 260 ) and the burden, in the first instance, is on the People to prove that the stop comported with constitutional limitations.

1998Addressing these seriatim, the defendant has standing to challenge the stop of a vehicle in which he was no more than a passenger (People v May, 81 NY2d 725 ; People v Matthew, 228 AD2d 260 ) and the burden, in the first instance, is on the People to prove that the stop comported with constitutional limitations.

1998(People v Baldwin, 25 NY2d 66 .) Moreover, if it were illegal, any evidence obtained thereby must be suppressed.

1997(People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160 [1981].) The People contend that the motion to suppress should be denied, ab initia, without the necessity of conducting a hearing.

1995A defendant has standing to challenge a search which results in the seizure of contraband only if he demonstrates "a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises” (People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 357 ; see also, CPL 710.60; People v Tejada, 81 NY2d 861, 863 ).

1992Assuming, arguendo, that the defendant has standing to challenge the search (see, People v Rodriguez, 69 NY2d 159 ; People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 851 ), the police were properly acting upon the apparent authority of the woman to grant permission to search the apartment (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1 , cert denied 454 US 854 ).

1992Assuming, arguendo, that the defendant has standing to challenge the search (see, People v Rodriguez, 69 NY2d 159 ; People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 851 ), the police were properly acting upon the apparent authority of the woman to grant permission to search the apartment (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1 , cert denied 454 US 854 ).

1992Assuming, arguendo, that the defendant has standing to challenge the search (see, People v Rodriguez, 69 NY2d 159 ; People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 851 ), the police were properly acting upon the apparent authority of the woman to grant permission to search the apartment (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1 , cert denied 454 US 854 ).

1992Assuming, arguendo, that the defendant has standing to challenge the search (see, People v Rodriguez, 69 NY2d 159 ; People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 851 ), the police were properly acting upon the apparent authority of the woman to grant permission to search the apartment (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1 , cert denied 454 US 854 ).

1991The defendant has standing to challenge the legality of the search of the codefendant’s apartment in which he was present, because he was charged under the statutory presumption of possession of Penal Law § 220.25 (2) (see, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 360 ; People v Millan, 69 NY2d 514 ).

1989The New York Court of Appeals, adopting the analysis of Rakas v Illinois ( 439 US 128 [1978]), has held that a defendant has standing to challenge a search of a place and a subsequent seizure or arrest only if the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched.