PEOPLE v. CAMERON (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Alexander Jeong, J., at plea;  Marina Cora Mundy, J., at sentence), rendered September 21, 2022, convicting him of assault in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing should be vacated because the Supreme Court failed to state on the record the reasons for issuing it (see CPL 530.12[5]) is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to object to the order of protection at sentencing or otherwise raise the issue before the court (see id. § 470.05[2];  People v. Newman, 234 A.D.3d 877, 225 N.Y.S.3d 370;  People v. Daniel, 233 A.D.3d 704, 220 N.Y.S.3d 853; People v. Demilio, 227 A.D.3d 1098, 1100–1101, 213 N.Y.S.3d 82).  Under the circumstances presented, we decline to review that contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v. Crosby, 230 A.D.3d 597, 598, 214 N.Y.S.3d 794;  People v. Zhiminaicela–Duchitanga, 214 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 184 N.Y.S.3d 607).  “[T]he better practice—and best use of judicial resources—is for a defendant seeking adjustment of [final orders 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. Person, 233 A.D.3d 804, 804, 221 N.Y.S.3d 671).

GENOVESI, J.P., MILLER, DOWLING and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.