Summary
In People v. Paulino (216 AD2d 238, lv denied 89 NY2d 1039), the First Department, citing Tejada, held that the defendant did not have automatic standing to contest the search and seizure of a room because the People relied on not only the room presumption contained in PL § 220.25(2) but also on the theory of constructive possession.
Summary of this case from People v. HendersonOpinion
June 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.).
Defendant did not have automatic standing to challenge the search and seizure, as the People relied on not only the "room presumption" of Penal Law § 220.25 (2) but also constructive possession ( see, People v. Tejada, 81 N.Y.2d 861). However, were we to address the merits, we would find that the police were justified in making a warrantless entry and seizing of drugs found in plain view in light of the police officer's reasonable belief that someone inside the apartment was in danger and in need of assistance ( see, People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173, cert denied 426 U.S. 953). Indeed, the police heard loud screams emanating from an apartment on the floor of a building where an elderly woman on the street had indicated there was a "problem".
Defendant has failed to preserve his contention that there was insufficient evidence of his knowledge of the weight of the drugs ( People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 11), and we decline to review the issue in the interest of justice.
We have reviewed defendant's additional arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.