People v. McCullum

• Decision Date: 17 December 2019
• Docket Number: No. 101,101
• Citation: 138 N.E.3d 502,114 N.Y.S.3d 773 (Mem),34 N.Y.3d 1022
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ramee MCCULLUM, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

34 N.Y.3d 1022
138 N.E.3d 502
114 N.Y.S.3d 773 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ramee MCCULLUM, Appellant.

No. 101

Court of Appeals of New York.

December 17, 2019

Paul Skip Laisure, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Benjamin S. Litman of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Solomon Neubort and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent.

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York City (Elizabeth Riordan Hurley, Gregory Diskant and Joshua Kipnees of counsel), for The Community Development Project of the Urban Justice Center and others, amici curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. As defendant concedes, he failed to preserve the only argument that he now raises on appeal—namely, his standing to challenge the police search of his property on the ground that he

34 N.Y.3d 1023

retained a reasonable expectation of privacy as a bailor following the New York

138 N.E.3d 503

City Marshal's legal possession of the apartment where he resided. On the facts of this case, we reject defendant's contention that an exception to the preservation rule applies. Accordingly, no question of law is presented for our review (see CPL 470.05[2] ;

114 N.Y.S.3d 774

People v. Wallace, 27 N.Y.3d 1037, 1038, 33 N.Y.S.3d 828, 53 N.E.3d 705 [2016] ).

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.