Defendant's legitimate expectation of privacy in the mailbox (see, People v. Whitfield, 81 N.Y.2d 904; People v. Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351), and his resulting standing, were established by his assertion, in response to the officer's question, that the mailbox was his and that he resided in the corresponding apartment.
The officer's contention that he feared for his safety lacked any objective basis (cf., People v. Chin, 192 A.D.2d 413, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1071; People v. Marine, 142 A.D.2d 368, 370-371), as the court properly determined that defendant was seized, i.e., that there was a "significant interruption [of his] liberty of movement", when the officer, while standing in defendant's path and without first asking him to move, placed his hand on defendant's left shoulder to brush him aside in order to observe the contents of the mailbox (see, People v. Bora, 83 N.Y.2d 531, 534-535) and was unwarranted under the circumstances.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.