PEOPLE v. CROSBY (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jill Hedy Konviser, J.), rendered September 19, 2022, convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the duration of the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the order of protection on this ground (see People v. Holmes, 206 A.D.3d 761, 761, 167 N.Y.S.3d 828;  People v. Alvarado, 200 A.D.3d 794, 794, 155 N.Y.S.3d 135).  Under the circumstances, we decline to reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.  “[T]he better practice—and best use of judicial resources—is for a defendant seeking adjustment of ․ an order [of protection] to request relief from the issuing court in the first instance, resorting to the appellate courts only if necessary” (People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 317, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13;  see People v. Lloyd–Douglas, 208 A.D.3d 520, 522, 173 N.Y.S.3d 287;  People v. Holmes, 206 A.D.3d at 762, 167 N.Y.S.3d 828).

BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.