Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: On appeal from his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, defendant argues that the search of the home of his fiancee (now his wife) violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Defendant has standing to contest the warrantless entry and search of his fiancee's house. The uncontroverted testimony at the suppression hearing established that defendant was virtually a daily visitor, had a paternal relationship with her son, slept there 5 to 10 nights per month, and, at the time of the search, had been entrusted with the premises in the absence of his fiancee. Thus, defendant established that he was a regular and frequent overnight guest who may have stayed at his fiancee's home the night before the search. In those circumstances, we conclude that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home (Minnesota v. Olson, 495 US ___, ___, 110 S Ct 1684, 1687-1690; United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1510; United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152, 1155, mod on other grounds 664 F.2d 84, cert. denied 455 U.S. 1022; State v. Corpier, 793 S.W.2d 430 [Mo]; State v. Carter, 22 Conn. App. 118, 576 A.2d 572).
Turning to the propriety of the entry and search, we conclude that it violated the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted without a warrant or probable cause, on the basis of an anonymous tip of unconfirmed reliability (see, People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398; People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v. Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231, 241). The suspicion of "burglary" justification raised by the People at the suppression hearing does not accord with the facts of this case. Finally, the People's reliance on the exigent circumstances doctrine is unavailing because it does not excuse the lack of probable cause (see, People v. Burr, 124 A.D.2d 5, 8, affd. 70 N.Y.2d 354, 360, cert. denied 485 U.S. 989).