PEOPLE v. BONILLA (2026)

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered April 16, 2019, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and unlawfully dealing with a child, and sentencing him to a term of probation of four years on the criminal sale count and a one-year conditional discharge on the unlawfully dealing with a child count, unanimously dismissed.

Defendant's challenges to his voluntary agreement to forfeit the $189 seized from his apartment at the time of his arrest are not properly before this Court because the forfeiture was not part of the judgment of conviction (compare People v. Abruzzese, 30 AD3d 219, 220 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 784 [2006], with People v. Detres–Perez, 127 AD3d 535, 535–536 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1162 [2015] ).  The court did not order any forfeiture, and the agreement was not part of the sentence (see People v. Melendez, 243 AD3d 487, 487–488 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 45 NY3d 947 [2026];  cf.  People v. Burgos, 129 AD3d 627, 627–628 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1038 [2015] ).  “Rather, the forfeiture was based on a voluntary settlement of a potential, separate civil proceeding, which would be governed by the CPLR” (People v. Lewis, 222 AD3d 600, 601 [1st Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 41 NY3d 1019 [2024];  Abruzzese, 30 AD3d at 220).  The appeal is dismissed, because no other issues are raised with respect to the judgment of conviction.  Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would affirm on the ground of defendant's valid waiver of his right to raise any appellate challenge to the forfeiture agreement (see Melendez, 243 AD3d at 488;  People v. Sanchez, 223 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1020 [2024];  Abruzzese, 30 AD3d at 220).  In any event, defendant's claims are unpreserved (see Melendez, 243 AD3d at 488;  Burgos, 120 AD3d at 628), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.