Defendant contends that his motion to suppress certain physical evidence should not have been denied without a hearing. However, as defendant's motion papers did not set forth facts demonstrating that the disputed evidence was obtained under circumstances requiring its suppression, a hearing was not required (CPL 710.60 [b]; People v Reynolds, 71 N.Y.2d 552, 558). Defendant failed to establish standing to contest the seizure by demonstrating a legitimate expectation of privacy over the area searched or the item seized (People v Rodriguez, 69 N.Y.2d 159, 163). Defendant may not assert standing based on the presumption contained in Penal Law § 220.25 since he was not charged with possession under the statutory presumption. Rather, the evidence sought to be suppressed was seized from a vehicle which defendant never entered. A defendant charged with possessory crimes based on a theory other than the statutory presumption must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy to challenge the search (People v Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351, 358-359).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.