People v. HarrisPeople v. Harris
The branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied. The defendant did not sustain his burden of showing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched so as to have standing to challenge the warrantless search (see People v Sanford, 297 AD2d 759 [2002]; People v Rosario, 277 AD2d 943 [2000]; People v Craig, 155 AD2d 550 [1989]).
As the People did not offer identification testimony at the trial from the witness who made a showup identification, the defendant’s contention that the court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress this identification testimony is academic (see People v Frantz, 1 AD3d 455, 456 [2003]; People v Pena, 300 AD2d 132 [2002]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Miller and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.