PEOPLE v. MARANS

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The notice requirement of CPL 700.70 is rooted in the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures (see, People v. Merced, 119 Misc.2d 238, 240). The defendant does not have standing to challenge the interception of the third-party conversations involved herein (see, People v. Edelstein, 54 N.Y.2d 306, 309). Since the defendant has failed to demonstrate that he was a party to intercepted conversations or that he had a proprietary interest in the wiretapped premises (see, People v La Rocca, 112 A.D.2d 1010; People v. Troia, 104 A.D.2d 389, 390; People v. Sergi, 96 A.D.2d 911; People v. Gallina, 95 A.D.2d 336, 338; see also, People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160, 165), the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence which was seized pursuant to a search warrant issued upon evidence derived from communications intercepted pursuant to the authorized wiretap, despite the People's failure to give notice pursuant to CPL 700.70.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.