People v. Nunn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nunn

298 A.D.2d 604, 748 N.Y.S.2d 690, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10276

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 604 (People v. Nunn) 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. Nunn, 298 A.D.2d 604, 748 N.Y.S.2d 690, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered April 16, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the stolen printer. Thus, he lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search of the printer (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108-109; People v Walker, 192 AD2d 734, 735; People v Jaime, 171 AD2d 884, 885; People v Metz, 168 AD2d 515, 516).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered April 16, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the stolen printer. Thus, he lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search of the printer (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108-109; People v Walker, 192 AD2d 734, 735; People v Jaime, 171 AD2d 884, 885; People v Metz, 168 AD2d 515, 516).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 604, 748 N.Y.S.2d 690, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nunn-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack