By Reply Memorandum ("Reply Memorandum") dated and filed with the Court on July 1, 2019, the Defendant, in response to a Decision and Order issued by this Court on June 17, 2019, moved to establish standing with regard to narcotics and drug paraphernalia recovered pursuant to the execution of a search warrant at XXX Glenmore Avenue, Brooklyn, New York ("Location"). On July 5, 2019, the People indicated that they will not file a response.

Citing People v Burton as authority, the Defendant contends that he has sustained his evidentiary burden to satisfy the standing threshold because he is entitled to rely on People's evidence (People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584 [2006]). Specifically, the Defendant argues that because the Criminal Court complaint ("Complaint") filed with the court on October 12, 2018 alleged that Det. Daniel Molinski "observed the Defendant inside of a bedroom" and further "observed the Defendant in possession of a scale with crack/cocaine residue from on top of a shelf in of the above listed bedroom, and a quantity of plastic bags from the floor of said bedroom" (see copy of the Complaint), these allegations, as pleaded, demonstrate his standing.

Although the Defendant is correct that he is entitled to rely on People's evidence, including sworn statements made by law enforcement, to demonstrate standing (People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584 [2006]; CPL 710.60 [1]), it remains "a defendant's burden to demonstrate [*2]his or her own constitutional interest in seeking suppression" (People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 358 [1989]). Indeed, standing is not established merely by asserting a possessory interest in the seized goods; rather, a Defendant must assert a privacy interest in the item searched (People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99 [1996]; People v Tejada, 81 NY2d 861 [1993]; People v Jones, 155 AD3d 1103 [3d Dept 2017]). "Hearings on supression motions 'are not automatic or generally available for the asking by boilerplate allegations'" (People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584 [2006] citing People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 422 [1993]). As the Defendant has failed to establish and assert a privacy interest in the Location, he has again failed to establish standing to challenge the seizure of the tangible evidence recovered from the Location. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for a Darden hearing is denied.

This Court rejects Defendant's argument that the Complaint must be dismissed for facial insufficiency because he was merely present inside the Location where the contraband was found. First, pursuant to CPL 255.20 (3), all pretrial motions must be made within 45 days of arraignment, unless the Defendant can demonstrate good cause why his motion could not be made within the statutory time period. Here, the Defendant was arraigned on the Complaint on October 12, 2018. On July 1, 2019, 262 days later, the Defendant included in his Reply Memorandum a motion to dismiss the Complaint for facial insufficiency. The Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause as to why his facial sufficiency motion was not filed earlier. Accordingly, Defendant's dismissal motion for facial insufficiency is procedurally barred. In addition, Defendant's contention is without merit in that the contraband was found inside a bedroom at the Location on top of a shelf and on the floor, and the Defendant was found inside such bedroom. As the charges are based upon ordinary constructive possession, the evidence, as pleaded, is sufficient for facial sufficiency purposes with respect to Defendant's dominion and control over the contraband.

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for a Darden hearing is denied.

Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint for facial insufficiency is denied.

Defendant's motion seeking the right to make further motions is granted to the extent afforded by CPL 255.20 (3).

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.