# People v. Louree

> New York Court of Appeals · June 5, 2007 · 8 N.Y.3d 541

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5485058

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York v. Cornell Louree
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 5, 2007
- **Citations:** 8 N.Y.3d 541; 869 N.E.2d 18
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pigott
- **Judges:** Pigott, Read
- **Cited by:** 292 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5485058

## Opinion text

Pigott, J.
(dissenting). Because I believe that defendant was required to preserve the issue for appellate review, I respectfully dissent. The record reveals that defendant was made aware of the postrelease component of his sentence at the sentencing proceeding (see generally People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]). Thus, defendant was required to preserve the issue as nothing in this case calls for the “rare case” exception to the preservation doctrine described in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Here, defendant could have raised an objection to the sentencing judge and he would have then been able to raise the issue on his direct appeal (see People v Fulton, 30 AD3d 961 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 789 [2006]).
Accordingly, I dissent and would affirm the order of the Appellate Division.
*547 Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Gbaffeo and Jones concur with Judge Read; Judge Pigott dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion in which Judge Smith concurs.
Order reversed, etc.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5485058. Public record. Not legal advice.