PEOPLE v. PEREZ (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen N. Biben, J.), rendered May 9, 2019, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing her to five years of probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant argues that the court should have made further inquiry before sentencing because the presentence report attributed two sentences to her which arguably suggested that she was not guilty of grand larceny.  This claim is unpreserved because defendant never moved to withdraw her plea or to vacate the judgment (see People v. Blackwell, 41 AD3d 121, 121 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 989 [2007]), and we decline to address the issue in the interest of justice (see People v. Vargas, 162 AD3d 531 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 942 [2018]).  In any event, it is well established that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v. Lopez (71 N.Y.2d 662, 666 [1988]) does not apply to statements a defendant makes in an interview for the presentence report (see People v. Rojas, 159 AD3d 468, 468 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1086 [2018]).