You are here: / / NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING,...

NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined New York law controlled the police entry and search of defendant’s apartment building in New Jersey, and defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the common areas of the building:

We find it unnecessary to decide any questions of New Jersey search and seizure law, because we find that New York law governs the issues raised here. Suppression issues, including those arising out of a defendant’s constitutional rights, are generally governed by the law of the forum, and “New York has a paramount interest in the application of its laws to this case” … . …

… [W]e find that “defendant has failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the common [areas] of his building, accessible to all tenants and their invitees” … . The unremarkable fact that access to the building was controlled by a locked outer door does not create an expectation of privacy that would not otherwise exist … . The basic principle … is that general access to common areas negates a personal expectation of privacy in those areas for an individual resident. This principle applies except in unusual circumstances, such as where common areas are “shared for eating and bathing purposes essential to daily living and facilities for which are commonly found in any home” … . At least where common areas are used primarily as a means of ingress and egress, to be used by the residents of individual units and their invitees, the presence of a locked outer door does not create a legitimate expectation of privacy. Accordingly, defendant’s rights were not violated when the police used his key to enter the building. People v Espinal, 2018 NY Slip Op 03613, First Dept 5-17-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))/EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY (COMMON AREAS OF APARTMENT BUILDING, (NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))/APARTMENT BUILDINGS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, COMMON AREAS, NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))/COMMON AREAS (APARTMENT BUILDINGS, CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR DECLINING THE COURT’S OFFER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IT COULD DEVIATE FROM THE ACQUIT-FIRST RULE AFTER THE JURY INDICATED IT HAD DEADLOCKED ON THE TOP COUNT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT).
THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT LOCK THE WHEELS ON THE SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE FAINTED OR STEPPED BACKWARDS OFF THE SCAFFOLD (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S TRUCK WAS IN THE WRONG LANE, THE POSITION OF THE TRUCK FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC ON HIS MOTORCYCLE AT HIGH SPEED WHEN HE STRUCK A CAR, AND WAS THROWN UNDER THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S LADDER SHIFTED AND HE FELL, HEARSAY IN A REPORT WHICH CONSTITUTED A MISTRANSLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
New York City Street-Sweeping Vehicles Are Now Exempt from the Rules of the Road Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) (Subject to the “Reckless Disregard” as Opposed to the “Ordinary Negligence” Standard) But Were Not So Exempt in 2010 When this Accident Occurred
ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A... NO INDICATION IN THE INDICTMENT OR THE ALLOCUTION THAT THE THREE ‘POSSESSION...