Opinion
April 4, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On the evening of July 19, 1983, the defendant persuaded three young boys to accompany him to a Queens apartment where he and a codefendant, Al Maxwell, held them hostage. Two of the boys were freed the next morning. The third boy was held until he was located by the police who had been led to the apartment by the other two boys.
The defendant assigns error to the hearing court's determination that he lacked standing to challenge the warrantless entry into, and the subsequent search of, the apartment where the boys had been held. We find no merit to this contention. The defendant initially told the police that he lived in a Manhattan hotel and later advised them that he lived "on and off" at the subject Queens apartment. The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant was a mere transient in the apartment where he was arrested and the physical evidence was seized. Under all the circumstances, the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment and, therefore, lacked standing to object to the warrantless entry or to challenge the legality of the search (see, Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, reh denied 439 U.S. 1122; People v. Rodriguez, 69 N.Y.2d 159, 162; People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160).
The defendant's further contention that his arrest without a warrant was unlawful is similarly without merit. Based upon the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer, probable cause existed to believe the defendant had committed or was committing a crime (see, Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50-51; People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 589, cert denied 449 U.S. 1023; People v. Farinaro, 110 A.D.2d 653, 654).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and have found them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.