From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Crisano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 1998
247 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 2, 1998

Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property that was the subject of the search. Therefore, he is without standing to contest the validity of the search and the resulting seizure of physical evidence found inside the subject premises ( see, People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160).

The defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel rest upon matters which are dehors the record and therefore cannot be reviewed on this appeal.

Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Crisano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 1998
247 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Crisano

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL CRISANO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 2, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
667 N.Y.S.2d 928

Citing Cases

People v. McMahon

The defendant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property that was the subject of…

People v. Clemens

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based…