Opinion
2001-00586
Submitted October 14, 2003.
November 10, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered January 9, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification and physical evidence.
Gary Cohen, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain evidence should have been suppressed as the product of his allegedly illegal arrest or of an allegedly illegal search of the automobile in which he was a passenger. However, the defendant lacks standing to seek suppression of property seized from the person of his accomplice ( see People v. Morales, 116 A.D.2d 671), and he failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the automobile ( see People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160; People v. Collier, 107 A.D.2d 754; People v. Cacioppo, 104 A.D.2d 559). Accordingly, that branch of his motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied.
The defendant contends that the court erred in failing to suppress testimony regarding an alleged showup identification by the complainant at the scene of the crime. However, as the People did not offer evidence at the trial of an identification of the defendant by the complainant, his contention is academic ( see People v. Woodberry, 176 A.D.2d 770).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit ( see People v. Moise, 1 A.D.3d 464 [decided herewith]).
GOLDSTEIN, J.P., ADAMS, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.