People v. Cruz

49 A.D.3d 391, 852 N.Y.2d 837
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Cruz. Read the opinion of the Court — 31 A.D.3d 660

Opinion

Defendant failed to establish at the hearing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement area of the apartment building. Accordingly, he lacked standing to move to suppress the drugs and paraphernalia found in that basement (see People v Rodriguez, 69 NY2d 159 [1987]; People v Jose, 252 AD2d 401 [1998], affd 94 NY2d 844 [1999]). There was no evidence that this basement was the residence of defendant or anyone else, or that it was anything but a drug factory. Defendant’s connection with the premises was either based solely on his illegal activity therein, or, as he claimed, was that of an occasional legitimate worker; neither was sufficient to establish standing. Concur—Lippman, P.J, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

People v. Cruz, 49 A.D.3d 391, 852 N.Y.2d 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

49 A.D.3d 391 (People v. Cruz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Jose
724 N.E.2d 366 (New York Court of Appeals, 1999)
People v. Rodriguez
505 N.E.2d 586 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. Jose
252 A.D.2d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)