Opinion
July 15, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the jacket found in his brother's car and the bicycle found in defendant's backyard during warrantless searches. Defendant lacks standing to contest the search of his brother's car (see, People v Rodriquez, 69 N.Y.2d 159, 161-163; People v. Jones, 182 A.D.2d 1066). Contrary to defendant's contention, the People may raise the issue of standing for the first time on appeal (see, People v. Jones, supra; People v. Sanchez-Reyes, 172 A.D.2d 1034, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 926; People v. Johnson, 154 A.D.2d 932, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 771). In any event, we agree with the suppression court that the police properly searched the car after they obtained the consent of the owner.
The court also properly found the seizure of the bicycle valid based on a written consent to search signed by a co-resident of the premises, who had a common right of access to the backyard where the bicycle was found leaning against the house (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 1, 9, rearg denied 54 N.Y.2d 832, cert denied 454 U.S. 854; People v. Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286, 290; People v Sawyer, 135 A.D.2d 1083, 1084). Once the police were lawfully in the backyard, they were authorized to seize the bicycle, which had "red stains" on it and appeared to be evidence of the crime (see generally, 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.3 [2d ed]).