PEOPLE v. LLOYD (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Phyllis Chu, J.), rendered November 7, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a firearm, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence of a term of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting Condition No. 14 from the conditions of probation;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was indicted, inter alia, for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3]) and criminal possession of a firearm (id. § 265.01–b[1]).  The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a firearm and sentenced to a term of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities.

The People correctly concede that Condition No. 14 of the defendant's conditions of probation violated Penal Law § 65.10(1) (see People v. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d 908, 909–910, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694).  Accordingly, that condition should not have been imposed.

The defendant's contention that Penal Law §§ 265.03(3), 265.01–b(1), and 265.01(1) and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 10–131(i)(3) are unconstitutional in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 and that the indictment was thus defective is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to raise a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court (see People v. Cabrera, 41 N.Y.3d 35, 42, 207 N.Y.S.3d 18, 230 N.E.3d 1082;  People v. Thompson, 239 A.D.3d 774, 774, 233 N.Y.S.3d 739).  In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit.  “The Bruen decision had no impact on the constitutionality of New York State's criminal possession of a weapon statutes” (People v. Thompson, 239 A.D.3d at 774–775, 233 N.Y.S.3d 739;  see People v. Emmanuel D., 238 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 235 N.Y.S.3d 143).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Brisman, 43 N.Y.3d 322, 235 N.Y.S.3d 248, 262 N.E.3d 249;  People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contention need not be reached in light of our determination.

DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, WARHIT and LOVE, JJ., concur.