| People v Gonzalez |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09044 [45 AD3d 696] |
| November 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Alfredo Gonzalez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Daniel M. Reback of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.),rendered December 5, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing,of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidenceand a statement made by him to the police.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In order to have standing to contest the search of a premises, the defendant must establishthat he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched (see People v Ortiz,83 NY2d 840, 842 [1994]; People v Kennedy, 284 AD2d 346 [2001]). Contrary to thedefendant's contention, he failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy inthe premises as he was only a casual visitor to the premises (see People v Ortiz, 83 NY2dat 842-843; People v Abreu, 239 AD2d 424 [1997]; People v Bandera, 166 AD2d657 [1990]; People v Melendez, 160 AD2d 739 [1990]). Accordingly, the hearing courtproperly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physicalevidence recovered from the premises, and properly denied that branch of the omnibus motionwhich was to suppress his statement made to the police on the ground that it was derived from anillegal search.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to certain remarks [*2]made by the prosecutor during summation, as defense counsel didnot object to them (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kirby, 34 AD3d 695, 695-696 [2006]). In any event, thechallenged remarks were either responsive to defense counsel's summation, constituted faircomment on or reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, or were harmless error (see People v Pierre, 30 AD3d 622[2006]; People v Pearson, 20 AD3d575, 577 [2005]; People vRhodes, 11 AD3d 487, 488 [2004]; cf. People v Ashwal 39 NY2d 105, 109-110[1976]).
The defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit(see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 714-715 [1998]; People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626,627 [2007]).
The defendant's remaining contention, raised in point II of his brief, is without merit. Crane,J.P., Lifson, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.