PEOPLE v. RANDEL (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered December 3, 2021, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in imposing both restitution and a mandatory surcharge is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Stebbins, 171 AD3d 1395, 1397;  People v. Francis, 82 AD3d 1263;  People v. Salmans, 49 AD3d 961, 962;  People v. Ziolkowski, 9 AD3d 915).  In any event, the contention is without merit (see Penal Law § 60.35[6];  People v. Quinones, 95 N.Y.2d 349, 352;  People v. Hall, 303 A.D.2d 601).

The defendant's contention that the matter requires remittal to the County Court, Dutchess County, for a reconstruction hearing with regard to a purported off-the-record presentence conference is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]) and based, in part, on matter outside the record.  In any event, the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a reconstruction hearing (see People v. Parris, 4 NY3d 41, 44, 49–50;  see also Matter of Benjamin S., 55 N.Y.2d 116, 120;  People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 526;  People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227).

LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.