People v. Sapp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sapp

280 A.D.2d 906, 720 N.Y.S.2d 441, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 906 (People v. Sapp) 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. Sapp, 280 A.D.2d 906, 720 N.Y.S.2d 441, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking suppression of evidence seized from the victim’s apartment pursuant to an allegedly invalid search warrant and evidence subsequently obtained as the allegedly tainted fruits of the illegal search and seizure at the victim’s apartment. The record supports the court’s determination that defendant lacks standing to challenge the legality of the search and seizure at the victim’s apartment because he had moved out of the apartment prior to the execution of the warrant and had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises (see, People v Glenn, 140 AD2d 623, lv denied 72 NY2d 918; see also, People v Thurman, 262 AD2d 987, 988, lv denied 94 NY2d 830; People v Orlando, 223 AD2d 927, lv denied 88 NY2d 851). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Kehoe, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking suppression of evidence seized from the victim’s apartment pursuant to an allegedly invalid search warrant and evidence subsequently obtained as the allegedly tainted fruits of the illegal search and seizure at the victim’s apartment. The record supports the court’s determination that defendant lacks standing to challenge the legality of the search and seizure at the victim’s apartment because he had moved out of the apartment prior to the execution of the warrant and had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises (see, People v Glenn, 140 AD2d 623, lv denied 72 NY2d 918; see also, People v Thurman, 262 AD2d 987, 988, lv denied 94 NY2d 830; People v Orlando, 223 AD2d 927, lv denied 88 NY2d 851). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Kehoe, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 906, 720 N.Y.S.2d 441, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sapp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack