Opinion
CA 03-01471.
December 31, 2003.
Appeal from an order of Monroe County Court (Keenan, J.), entered September 16, 2002, which affirmed a judgment (denominated order) of Rochester City Court (King, J.), entered January 28, 2002 that found defendant violated Rochester City Code § 90-21(B)(6).
KNAUF SHAW LLP, ROCHESTER (ALAN J. KNAUF OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LINDA S. KINGSLEY, CORPORATION COUNSEL, ROCHESTER (AMY HARTMAN NICHOLS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Before: PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, AND HAYES, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant, the owner of vacant residential property in the City of Rochester, appeals from an order of County Court affirming a judgment of City Court that found him in violation of Rochester City Code § 90-21(B)(6) for failing to cut grass and weeds in the rear yard of his property, and imposed a penalty of $150. A Rochester Neighborhood Conservation Officer responding to the complaint of a neighbor discovered the violation when the officer inspected the rear yard from the driveway. We reject the contention of defendant that the officer's warrantless entry onto the property violated the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches (see US Const Fourth Amend; N.Y. Const, art I, § 12). Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to observations of the rear yard from the driveway ( see People v. Versaggi, 296 A.D.2d 429, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 714; People v. Warmuth, 187 A.D.2d 473, 474-475, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 894; People v. Lewis, 162 A.D.2d 760, 762-763, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 894; People v. Smith, 109 A.D.2d 1096, 1098-1099).