Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Cofresi 60 N.Y.2d 728

← Cases

People v. Cofresi

60 N.Y.2d 728 Court N.Y. Decision date 1983-10-18 English

Contents

Majority

p. 728
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alberto Cofresi, Miguel Cofresi, and Heriberto Torres, Appellants.
Argued September 12, 1983;
decided October 18, 1983
p. 730
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Chester L. Mirsky for Miguel Cofresi, appellant.
Franklyn Gould for Alberto Cofresi, appellant.
Arthur M. Unterman for Heriberto Torres, appellant.
Mario Merola, District Attorney (Alexandra Valicenti and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Having relied upon “automatic standing” at a time when the continued existence of that doctrine as a matter of State law was in serious question (see United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83 ; People v Hansen, 38 NY2d 1 .7), and failed to offer at the suppression hearing proof of ownership or other reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises from which contraband was seized, defendants have not preserved for our review the search and seizure issues they now urge. Nor are they entitled to a second hearing on standing, having had the opportunity at the first hearing to litigate that question (see People v Havelka, 45 NY2d 636 ).

p. 731
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cases cited