Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion for a suppression hearing. We disagree. The defendant failed to raise a privacy interest in the contraband recovered at the scene and, therefore, had no standing to seek a suppression hearing ( see, CPL 710.60; People v Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351, 358; People v. Jones, 210 A.D.2d 91).
The trial court properly granted the People's motion to amend the indictment to reflect the true date of the crimes committed. The amendment corrected an obvious clerical error which was not prejudicial and did not alter the theory of the prosecution's case ( see, CPL 200.70; People v. DeSanto, 217 A.D.2d 636; People v. Bell, 206 A.D.2d 686; People v. Hood, 194 A.D.2d 556).
Since the violation of probation was based on the conviction under Indictment No. N11959/94, his probation was properly revoked.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.