PEOPLE v. JONES (2004)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of one count of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[2] ).   Defendant contends that the police were engaged in an unlawful warrantless search when they discovered the victim's body and that County Court therefore erred in denying his suppression motion.   Although the People contended before the suppression court that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search, the court did not address standing and instead denied defendant's motion on the merits.   We agree with the People that defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing standing.   Defendant had been evicted from the building from which he operated his business and where the victim's body was found, and thus we conclude that defendant had no standing (see People v. Whitfield, 81 N.Y.2d 904, 905-906, 597 N.Y.S.2d 641, 613 N.E.2d 547;  see also People v. Garrett, 258 A.D.2d 530, 530-531, 686 N.Y.S.2d 57).   In any event, even assuming that defendant had standing, we would nevertheless conclude that the court properly denied defendant's motion on the merits.   As the court properly determined, defendant's employee had authority to allow the police to search the building.   When approached by the police outside the building, the employee had a key to the building and indicated to the police that he had just been in the building to retrieve some personal property.   In any event, the employee reasonably appeared to possess the requisite degree of authority to allow the police access to the building (see People v. Remo, 98 A.D.2d 843, 844, 470 N.Y.S.2d 825).   In addition, the court properly determined in the alternative that an emergency situation justified the warrantless entry (see generally People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173, 177-178, 383 N.Y.S.2d 246, 347 N.E.2d 607, cert. denied 426 U.S. 953, 96 S.Ct. 3178, 49 L.Ed.2d 1191).   The determination of a suppression court must be accorded great weight “because of its ability to observe and assess the credibility of the witnesses[,] and its findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous” (People v. Hill, 175 A.D.2d 603, 603, 572 N.Y.S.2d 546), which is not the case here.

We also reject the contentions of defendant that the court erred in denying his motion for substitution of counsel (cf. People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 825, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233) and that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400;  People v. Davis, 307 A.D.2d 722, 723, 762 N.Y.S.2d 327, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 619, 767 N.Y.S.2d 402, 403, 799 N.E.2d 625, 626).   We have reviewed the contentions of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: