In re George R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re George R.

226 A.D.2d 645, 641 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4322

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 22, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 645 (In re George R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re George R., 226 A.D.2d 645, 641 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Greenbaum, J.), entered August 1, 1994, as, after a hearing, granted the respondent’s motion to suppress physical evidence and his statement to the police.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On appeal, the petitioner contends that the Family Court erred in finding that the respondent had standing to contest the search of a room in his grandmother’s apartment. However, while the respondent did not live with his grandmother, the evidence demonstrated that the respondent was a regular overnight guest at her apartment and that he both slept in and kept possessions in the room where the weapon was recovered. Under these circumstances, the respondent’s expectation of privacy in the apartment was "rooted in understandings that are recognized and permitted by society” and thus was legitimate (see, Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128, 144). Accordingly, the respondent was entitled to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment (see, Minnesota v Olson, 495 US 91).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Greenbaum, J.), entered August 1, 1994, as, after a hearing, granted the respondent’s motion to suppress physical evidence and his statement to the police.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On appeal, the petitioner contends that the Family Court erred in finding that the respondent had standing to contest the search of a room in his grandmother’s apartment. However, while the respondent did not live with his grandmother, the evidence demonstrated that the respondent was a regular overnight guest at her apartment and that he both slept in and kept possessions in the room where the weapon was recovered. Under these circumstances, the respondent’s expectation of privacy in the apartment was "rooted in understandings that are recognized and permitted by society” and thus was legitimate (see, Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128, 144). Accordingly, the respondent was entitled to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment (see, Minnesota v Olson, 495 US 91).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 645, 641 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-george-r-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack