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
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIM ASSOCIATED WITH TOOTH NUMBER 28 IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE NEARLY THREE-YEAR GAP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S KNEE SURGERY AND HIS SEEING THE SURGEON TO COMPLAIN OF KNEE PAIN DID NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Challenge to Prenuptial Agreement Not Met
Throwing Objects Off Balcony Evinces Depraved Indifference.
Once an Amended Complaint is Served the Action Must Proceed As if the Original Complaint Never Existed—A Summary Judgment Motion Based Upon an Affirmative Defense Asserted for the First Time in the Answer to the Amended Complaint Was Properly Brought, Even Though a Prior Summary Judgment Motion on the Same Ground Had Been Denied/Medical Billing Software, i.e., Intellectual Property, Is “Personal Property” Covered by General Obligations Law 5-903—The Automatic Renewal Provision of the Medical Billing Contract Was Therefore Void
PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS STATED CLAIMS FOR TENANT HARASSMENT, PRIVATE NUISANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY, WATER, HEAT AND VENTILATION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEY FAILED TO PROVE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY TOOK REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO REMEDY THE WET FLOOR, AND THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE BUILDING OWNER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ELEVATOR MISLEVELING, EVIDENCE THE ELEVATOR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED, AND THE APPLICABILITY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2026 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...