People v. Cannizzaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cannizzaro

167 A.D.2d 871, 562 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14427

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 871 (People v. Cannizzaro) 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. Cannizzaro, 167 A.D.2d 871, 562 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant lacks standing to challenge the propriety of the search of the automobile operated by Samuel Amoia because defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in either the automobile or its contents (see, People v Reynolds, 71 NY2d 552, 557; People v Rodriguez, 69 NY2d 159, 163).

In any event, probable cause for the issuance of the several eavesdropping warrants and for the interception of oral communications within identified premises was established before the issuing court, and the police made a sufficient showing that normal investigative procedures had been tried and failed and that other normal investigative procedures appeared unlikely to succeed if used (CPL 700.15 [4]; People v Campaigni, 151 AD2d 1010, lv denied 74 NY2d 845).

Defendants’ claim that the court erred by declining to hold a Darden hearing (see, People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, affg 40 [872]*872AD2d 588) has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.—criminal sale of controlled substance, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant lacks standing to challenge the propriety of the search of the automobile operated by Samuel Amoia because defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in either the automobile or its contents (see, People v Reynolds, 71 NY2d 552, 557; People v Rodriguez, 69 NY2d 159, 163).

In any event, probable cause for the issuance of the several eavesdropping warrants and for the interception of oral communications within identified premises was established before the issuing court, and the police made a sufficient showing that normal investigative procedures had been tried and failed and that other normal investigative procedures appeared unlikely to succeed if used (CPL 700.15 [4]; People v Campaigni, 151 AD2d 1010, lv denied 74 NY2d 845).

Defendants’ claim that the court erred by declining to hold a Darden hearing (see, People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, affg 40 [872]*872AD2d 588) has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.—criminal sale of controlled substance, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 871, 562 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cannizzaro-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack