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. Jamel WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, Jr., J., at suppression hearing; Miriam R. Best, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered September 29, 2016, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of seven years and two years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant validly waived his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his challenge to the suppression decision (see People v. Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559–560 [2019], cert denied 589 U.S. 1302 [2020]; People v. Walker, 206 AD3d 541, 541 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1191 [2022] ). As an alternative holding, we find that Supreme Court properly denied defendant's suppression motion to the extent that it sought to suppress the recovered gun and defendant's two videotaped statements. Defendant lacked standing to challenge the law enforcement team's entry into the apartment where he was located (see People v. Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d 840, 842 [1994] ). Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the apartment since he had neither lived there nor stayed overnight (see id.). For this same reason, defendant lacked standing to challenge the police's search and recovery of the firearm (see People v. Santiago, 304 A.D.2d 407, 407 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 542 [2003]; cf. People v. Ramirez–Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 108 [1996] ). In any event, the police justifiably relied on the apartment tenant's authority to consent to a search of her closet, which revealed the presence of the firearm (see People v. McMorris, 195 AD3d 573, 573 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1147 [2021] ). Finally, the hearing court properly determined that defendant's videotaped statements at the precinct and the District Attorney's Office were sufficiently attenuated from his earlier statement which the court had suppressed after finding a Miranda violation (see People v. Paulman, 5 NY3d 122, 130–131 [2005]; People v. Morales, 184 AD3d 532, 533 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1114 [2020] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Ind. No. 1477 /15
Decided: October 15, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)