PEOPLE v. ROSSER (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J.), rendered December 22, 2016, convicting defendant, upon her pleas of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree under indictment No. 634/14 and of grand larceny in the third degree under SCI No. 1255/15, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of amending the sentence and commitment sheet under SCI No. 1255/15 to reflect that defendant was a second felony offender rather than a second violent felony offender, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant's claim that she did not engage in conduct which violated the terms of the plea agreement and authorized the termination of her participation in the treatment program, is unpreserved (see People v. Spruill, 200 A.D.3d 475, 475, 155 N.Y.S.3d 67 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 930, 164 N.Y.S.3d 13, 184 N.E.3d 834 [2022]), and we decline to consider it in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we find that the court providently exercised its discretion in imposing the sentence.  The record establishes that defendant was sufficiently advised of the completion requirements of the treatment program and the consequences of failure to abide by the terms (see People v. Vargas, 173 A.D.3d 495, 496, 102 N.Y.S.3d 189 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 393, 109 N.Y.S.3d 733, 133 N.E.3d 437 [2019];  People v. Harris, 103 A.D.3d 427, 428, 959 N.Y.S.2d 192 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 943, 968 N.Y.S.2d 5, 990 N.E.2d 139 [2013]).  Defendant did not dispute that she violated the conditions of the plea, nor did she dispute that the court was authorized to terminate her participation in the program as a result of those violations (see People v. Gines, 233 A.D.3d 417, 418, 220 N.Y.S.3d 744 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 1045, 236 N.Y.S.3d 649, 263 N.E.3d 907 [2025];  see also People v. Fiammegta, 14 N.Y.3d 90, 96, 896 N.Y.S.2d 735, 923 N.E.2d 1123 [2010]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in terminating defendant's participation in the treatment program and sentencing defendant (Gines, 233 A.D.3d at 418, 220 N.Y.S.3d 744), and we find no basis to modify the court's determination in the interest of justice.

The sentence and commitment sheet should be amended to the extent indicated.