Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. STANLEY SMITH, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). Supreme Court properly denied without a hearing that part of defendant's omnibus motion seeking suppression of physical evidence seized during a search of the subject residence. Defendant's motion did not contain sworn allegations of fact supporting the conclusion that he has standing to contest the legality of the search of the residence (see CPL 710.60[3][b]; see generally People v. Brunson, 226 A.D.2d 1093, 1093–1094 [4th Dept 1996], lv dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 981 [1996] ). In support of his motion, defendant submitted his written statement to the police in which he stated that he did not know the resident of the premises inasmuch as he had just met her on the night in question, and that he was at the premises for the purpose of socializing with her and other guests. Based on that statement, defendant was “no more than a casual visitor having ‘relatively tenuous ties' to the [premises]” and he thus lacks standing to contest the legality of the search (People v. Pope, 113 AD3d 1121, 1122 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1041 [2014], quoting People v. Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d 840, 842 [1994]; see People v. Gonzalez, 45 AD3d 696, 696 [2d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 811 [2008] ).
In light of our determination, defendant's remaining contentions have been rendered academic.
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 16–00367
Decided: November 17, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)