Opinion
September 12, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's argument, the People may raise on appeal the issue of his standing, or lack thereof, to challenge the police entry into the building in which he and his codefendants were found with drugs, cash and a weapon, since it was the defendant's burden, in the first instance, to establish that he had standing (see, People v. Jones, 182 A.D.2d 1066; People v. Sanchez-Reyes, 172 A.D.2d 1034; People v. Vasquez, 97 A.D.2d 524; CPL 710.60). Moreover, since the criminal possession charges were not "rooted solely in a statutory presumption attributing possession to [the] defendant" (People v. Tejeda, 81 N.Y.2d 861, 863 [emphasis in original]), the hearing court erred in conferring automatic standing on him. Rather, the defendant was required to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched (see, People v. Tejeda, supra; People v. Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351). Since the defendant had no connection whatsoever with the building in which he was found and, therefore, no legitimate expectation of privacy in those premises, he had no standing to challenge the police entry and search (see, People v. Melendez, 160 A.D.2d 739; People v Castellar, 159 A.D.2d 312). Balletta, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.