Majority
As a mere passenger, the appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of a lawfully stopped livery cab with respect to which he demonstrated no legitimate expectation of privacy (see People v Robinson, 38 AD3d 572 , 573 [2007]; People v Ballard, 16 AD3d 697 , 698 [2005]). Moreover, the appellant did not have automatic standing, since the presentment agency was not solely relying on the statutory presumption of Penal Law § 265.15 (3) (a) (see People v Millan, 69 NY2d 514 , 520 [1987]; People v Robinson, 38 AD3d at 572 ; People v Fredericks, 234 AD2d 472 , 473 [1996]; People v Carter, 199 AD2d 817 , 819 [1993], affd 86 NY2d 721 [1995]).
Cases cited
- People v. Robinson 38 AD3d 572 at 573 p. 964
- People v. Ballard 16 AD3d 697 at 698 p. 964
- People v. Millan 69 NY2d 514 at 520 p. 964
- People v. Carter 199 AD2d 817 at 819 p. 964
- People v. Carter 86 NY2d 721 p. 964
- In re David H. 69 NY2d 792 p. 965
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 965
- In re Macye Mc. 82 AD3d 892 p. 965
- In re Darnell C. 66 AD3d 771 p. 965
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 p. 965
- Middleton v. McNeil 542 US 946 p. 965
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 965
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 965