Opinion
December 10, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The hearing court properly determined that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of the car in which he was found sleeping at the time of his arrest. The hearing record shows that on July 22, 1982, the defendant and codefendant, after robbing and injuring a New York City public school teacher and her friend, drove off in the friend's car. On the following day, a Pennsylvania State Trooper received a radio broadcast that a car bearing a New York registration number was spotted moving erratically on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The Trooper later discovered the car, with the defendant and the codefendant, parked in a rest area off the Turnpike, and, prior to carrying out any search or seizure, ascertained from official sources that the car had been reported stolen. Neither the defendant nor the codefendant could produce an ownership registration. The defendant stated that the car belonged to a friend. A subsequent search of the car revealed weapons, ammunition, and money. It is settled that a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure is required to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy (see, People v. Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351, 356-360; People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160; People v. Finley, 145 A.D.2d 434). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record amply demonstrates the absence of any legitimate expectation of privacy in the car which he had stolen (see, People v. Finley, supra; People v. Gonzalez, 115 A.D.2d 73, 78, affd. 68 N.Y.2d 950).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.