lenge the search or seizure” (People v. Burton, 6 N.Y.3d 584, 587, 815 N.Y.S.2d 7, 848 N.E.2d 454 [2006] ). Pertinent here, “an overnight guest has an expectation of privacy in the host's home” and, thus, standing to contest a search of that home (People v. Perretti, 278 A.D.2d 597, 599, 719 N.Y.S.2d 145 [2000], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 762, 725 N.Y.S.2d 289, 748 N.E.2d 1085 [2001] ; see Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98–99, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 [1990] ; People v. Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d 840, 842, 611 N.Y.S.2d 500, 633 N.E.2d 1104 [1994] ; People v. Murray, 169 A.D.2d 843, 844, 565 N.Y.S.2d 212 [1991], lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1013, 575 N.Y.S.2d 821, 581 N.E.2d 1067 [1991] ). In our view, the facts set forth in the Orrego affidavit necessitated, at a minimum, that a hearing be held to determine whether defendant had standing to contest the search (see People v. Mabeus, 47 A.D.3d 1073, 1075, 850 N.Y.S.2d 664 [2008] ; see also People v. Jose, 239 A.D.2d 172, 173, 657 N.Y.S.2d 631 [1997] ; People v. Cordoba, 179 A.D.2d 404, 404, 578 N.Y.S.2d 416 [1992] ; compare People v. Scully, 14 N.Y.3d 861, 864, 903 N.Y.S.2d 302, 929 N.E.2d 364 [2010] ).Defendant's remaining arguments on his appeal from the judgment of conviction, as well as his appeal from the order denying his CPL article 440 motion, have been rendered academic by our decision.

Second, there was no connection drawn for the jurors, even implicitly, between the availability of postcommitment annual reviews and the significance of the jurors' decision. This distinguishes this case from the two cases of other jurisdictions on which Sugden relies: Johnson v. State, 601 A.2d 1093, 1096-97 (Md. 1992) (prosecutor's comments on defendant's right of appeal are improper because, besides not being based on the evidence, they implied that the jury need not be unduly concerned about convicting the defendant and encouraged the jury to disregard the instructions); and People v. Rutledge, 578 N.Y.S.2d 162, 163 (1992), accord Kaminski, 322 Wis. 2d 653, ¶ 22. In State v. Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175, ¶ 22, 322 Wis. 2d 653, 777 N.W.2d 654, we concluded that the testimony in that case on postcommitment annual reviews would not lead a reasonable juror to conclude that the reviews could correct any mistake in their verdict and thereby relieve them of their obligation to make a decision based on the law and evidence.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Arlene Silverman, J.). Pursuant to a search warrant, police recovered 173 vials of cocaine from the bedroom of an apartment located at 421 East 157th Street, Bronx County. Defendant, who was arrested at the premises, claimed that he was visiting his paramour, Lydia Rivera. His motion to suppress the evidence was originally denied for lack of standing (CPL 710.60) on the inappropriate ground that defendant did not reside at the premises (Minnesota v Olson, 495 U.S. 91). This Court remanded the case for a Mapp hearing (People v. Fuentes-Borda, 186 A.D.2d 405) to determine if defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy (United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83) as an overnight guest of Ms. Rivera (People v. Cordoba, 179 A.D.2d 404). Supreme Court found that, at the time the search warrant was executed, defendant resided in Flushing, Queens in an apartment he had shared with Lydia Rivera for 2 or 3 years.

Accordingly, if the People intend to introduce evidence at trial recovered from any other area in the apartment, they are directed to inform both the Court and defendant within seven days from the date of this order. If the People answer in the affirmative, this Court orders a hearing to be held at which defendant will have the burden to demonstrate that he has standing to contest the search, pursuant to the search warrant, of the remaining rooms in the apartment. People v. Jose, 252 A.D.2d 401, 402 (1st Dept 1998); People v. Cordoba, 179 A.D.2d 404, 404 (1st Dept 1992), lv denied,84 N.Y.2d 1010 (1994). Therefore, defendant's motion for a Franks/Alfinito hearing is held in abeyance pending the People's response to the Court's inquiry and the outcome of a standing hearing, if necessary.