Opinion
December 16, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends that Criminal Term should not have granted the People's motion to reopen the suppression hearing. However, since defendant did not specifically challenge the reliability of the radio transmission until both parties rested, it was appropriate to allow the People to thereafter present the source of that transmission (see, People v Havelka, 45 N.Y.2d 636, 643; People v Ward, 95 A.D.2d 233, 239-240).
A passenger in an automobile has standing to challenge the admissibility of any evidence seized as a result of an alleged illegal stop (see, People v Smith, 106 A.D.2d 525, 526; cf. Rakas v Illinois, 439 U.S. 128). In our view, however, Criminal Term correctly decided that, based on the testimony of the arresting officer and the woman who was the source of the radio transmission, the police possessed probable cause to stop and arrest defendant and his cohorts. Therefore, the evidence observed in plain view on the front seat of the automobile was admissible and that branch of the motion which was to suppress that evidence was properly denied (see, People v Class, 63 N.Y.2d 491, 494-495, cert granted ___ US ___, 105 S Ct 1863). Brown, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.