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
PEOPLE CONCEDED ROBBERY THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NO NEED FOR A NEW TRIAL, CONVICTION REDUCED (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
42 USC 1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED.
Failure to Mention the Rate of Compensation Required Dismissal of the Contract Cause of Action Under the Statute of Frauds/However the Allegation Defendant Employed Plaintiff Was Sufficient to Allow the Quantum Meruit Cause of Action to Go Forward
IN 2011 PLAINTIFF WITHDREW THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS FOR YEARS; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED AND TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
NO DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF TRACKED IN WATER DURING RAINSTORM.
Questioning of Witnesses by Trial Judge Did Not Deprive Defendant of a Fair Trial
Denial of “For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Said They Needed to Hear “Both Sides of the Story” Required Reversal

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...