| People v McCullum |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 08977 [34 NY3d 1022] |
| December 17, 2019 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, January 22, 2020 |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramee McCullum, Appellant. |
Argued November 19, 2019; decided December 17, 2019
People v McCullum, 159 AD3d 8, affirmed.
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.
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 NY3d at 1023} retained a reasonable expectation of privacy as a bailor following the New York 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]; People v Wallace, 27 NY3d 1037, 1038 [2016]).
Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.