PEOPLE v. PRAY (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Richard I. Horowitz, J.), rendered January 4, 2024, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and driving while ability impaired in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(1), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not voluntary because it was induced by a certain off-the-record promise.  Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's contention is preserved for appellate review (cf.  People v. Argueta, 233 A.D.3d 703, 703–704, 221 N.Y.S.3d 229).  However, the defendant's contention is without merit.  During the plea proceeding, the terms of the plea agreement were placed on the record and the defendant confirmed that no other promises had been made to induce him to plead guilty (see Matter of Benjamin S., 55 N.Y.2d 116, 120, 447 N.Y.S.2d 905, 432 N.E.2d 777;  People v. Copes, 145 A.D.3d 1639, 1640, 44 N.Y.S.3d 833;  People v. Sanchez, 184 A.D.2d 537, 538, 584 N.Y.S.2d 164).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v. Wiggins, 78 A.D.3d 1208, 1209, 911 N.Y.S.2d 664).

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.