PEOPLE v. MICKENS (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Abena Darkeh, J.), rendered November 28, 2022, convicting him of assault 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.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court had the authority to issue an order of protection in favor of two of the individuals named therein who were witnesses to the offense of which the defendant was convicted (see People v. Daniel A., 183 A.D.3d 909, 124 N.Y.S.3d 365).

The defendant's further contention that the order of protection should be vacated because the Supreme Court failed to state on the record its reasons for issuing it is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise this contention at sentencing or move to amend the order of protection on this ground (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Demilio, 227 A.D.3d 1098, 213 N.Y.S.3d 82;  People v. Shaquan G., 194 A.D.3d 744, 143 N.Y.S.3d 595).  Under the circumstances, we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v. Shaquan G., 194 A.D.3d at 744, 143 N.Y.S.3d 595).  The 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 court only if necessary (see People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 317, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13;  People v. Demilio, 227 A.D.3d at 1100–1101, 213 N.Y.S.3d 82).

DILLON, J.P., WARHIT, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.