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, etc., respondent, v. Paul GARRETT, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered March 26, 1990, as amended on June 7, 1990, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Cooperman, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that evidence was illegally seized from a garage he occupied. The garage was rented from the landowner by Harry Jaffe pursuant to a written lease. Jaffe in turn agreed to let the defendant occupy the garage “as long as he paid” rent. The defendant failed to pay rent, and Jaffe's written lease was about to run out, so Jaffe broke the lock and entered the premises to prepare it for return to the landowner. After Jaffe complained to the defendant's uncle that items in the garage had to be removed before it could be returned to the landowner, the defendant's uncle notified the police, who searched the garage with Jaffe's consent.
The defendant had an expectation of privacy in the garage up until the moment of eviction (see, People v. Ponto, 103 A.D.2d 573, 480 N.Y.S.2d 921; People v. Stadtmore, 52 A.D.2d 853, 382 N.Y.S.2d 807). However, the search of the garage by the police occurred after the prime tenant Jaffe evicted the defendant and assumed possession (see, People v. Davis, 169 A.D.2d 16, 570 N.Y.S.2d 661), pursuant to the defendant's agreement with Jaffe. Accordingly, at the time of the search, the defendant's interest or expectation of privacy in the garage had been terminated.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or involve matters dehors the record that cannot be determined on direct appeal (see, People v. Miller, 144 A.D.2d 867, 534 N.Y.S.2d 809).
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: February 08, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
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)