PEOPLE v. DAVIS (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felicia Mennin, J., at suppression hearing;  Neil E. Ross, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered September 14, 2022, convicting defendant, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's suppression motion should not have been summarily denied based on lack of standing.  Defendant claimed that he had standing based on his status as an “overnight guest” (see Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 95–97 [1990];  People v. Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d 840, 842–843 [1994] ), and supported this claim with factual allegations that, if true, would establish standing.  The court's view that these allegations were not credible and that the most reasonable inference was that defendant was a “casual visitor” (see Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d at 843) had no bearing on whether defendant established a material factual dispute regarding standing because defendant's “sworn allegations of fact ․ support[ed] the ground alleged,” i.e., that he was an overnight guest (see CPL 710.60[3][b] ).

However, the court properly denied the motion on the merits because the record established that a “protective sweep” of the apartment was justified after officers had arrested defendant, and soon after arrested codefendant, at the door to the apartment (see Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 [1990];  People v. Bryant, 91 AD3d 558, 558 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1009 [2013] ).  Thus, the police properly conducted a limited protective sweep of the apartment to determine if there was anyone present who might destroy evidence or pose a threat to the officers (see Bryant, 92 AD3d at 558, citing Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. at 334).