What is the standing test for a motion to suppress a search and seizure?

Only recently, in a unanimous opinion, this court again applied the rule of Ponder that it is a defendant's burden to demonstrate his or her own constitutional interest in seeking suppression. ¹ In (People v. Rodriguez, 69 N.Y.2d 159, 513 N.Y.S.2d 75, 505 N.E.2d 586), the defendant was charged with possession of drugs and hypodermic instruments found in an apartment in which he was sleeping. Affirming the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, we traced the evolution of the standing requirement up to the abrogation of the automatic standing rule and, citing Ponder, restated its holding that "the search and seizure entitlement under our own State Constitution was sufficient if accorded only to those with standing and that there was no reason to apply a more generous standing rule than was allowed under the Federal constitutional standard". (Id., at 162, 513 N.Y.S.2d 75, 505 N.E.2d 586.)