PEOPLE v. ORTIZ (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Toni M. Cimino, J.), rendered June 2, 2023, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the period of postrelease supervision imposed as part of the sentence was not excessive (see People v. Dorfils, 207 A.D.3d 654, 654, 170 N.Y.S.3d 482;  People v. Miller, 206 A.D.3d 940, 940, 168 N.Y.S.3d 699;  People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

Although it is undisputed that the defendant was 19 years old at the time the underlying offense was committed, the record does not demonstrate that a waiver of the mandatory surcharge and fees was warranted under any of the grounds enumerated in CPL 420.35(2–a).  Under the circumstances, and in the absence of the People's consent, we decline to waive the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing in the interest of justice (see People v. Robinson, 223 A.D.3d 917, 917, 203 N.Y.S.3d 719;  People v. Dorfils, 207 A.D.3d at 654, 170 N.Y.S.3d 482;  People v. Miller, 206 A.D.3d at 940, 168 N.Y.S.3d 699).

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, WAN and VENTURA, JJ., concur.