People v. Aquart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aquart

86 A.D.2d 616, 446 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15152

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 616 (People v. Aquart) 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

People v. Aquart, 86 A.D.2d 616, 446 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wilowski, J.), rendered July 17, 1980, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant’s motion to suppress tangible evidence (Beldock, J.). Judgment affirmed. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that the officer’s entry into the store in which the marihuana was discovered was lawfully made pursuant to the defendant’s consent. (Cf. People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122.) In any event, the defendant lacks standing to contest the officer’s entry into the store since he had no proprietary interest or reasonable expectation of privacy therein. (See People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160.) Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Cohalan and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wilowski, J.), rendered July 17, 1980, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the defendant’s motion to suppress tangible evidence (Beldock, J.). Judgment affirmed. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that the officer’s entry into the store in which the marihuana was discovered was lawfully made pursuant to the defendant’s consent. (Cf. People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122.) In any event, the defendant lacks standing to contest the officer’s entry into the store since he had no proprietary interest or reasonable expectation of privacy therein. (See People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160.) Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Cohalan and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 616, 446 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aquart-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack