PEOPLE v. DANIEL (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Jerry M. Iannece, J.), rendered November 18, 2022, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth 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 contention that the order of protection should be vacated because the Supreme Court failed to state on the record the reasons for issuing it is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise the issue at the sentencing proceeding or move to vacate the order of protection on this ground (see People v. Nicholson, 190 A.D.3d 768, 768, 135 N.Y.S.3d 853;  People v. O'Connor, 136 A.D.3d 945, 945, 24 N.Y.S.3d 918).  Under the circumstances, including that the order of protection was an express component of the plea bargain, we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a];  People v. O'Sullivan, 198 A.D.3d 986, 987, 157 N.Y.S.3d 47).

Although the defendant did not object to the duration of the order of protection, he had no practical ability to do so, as the Supreme Court did not announce the duration at either the plea or sentencing proceedings (see People v. Gonzalez, 207 A.D.3d 656, 657, 170 N.Y.S.3d 484).  However, the defendant's contention regarding the duration of the order of protection is without merit (see CPL 530.13[4];  People v. Zhiminaicela–Duchitanga, 214 A.D.3d 1005, 1005, 184 N.Y.S.3d 607).

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, GENOVESI and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.