PEOPLE v. NARMETOV (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Donald Leo, J.), rendered June 26, 2023, convicting him of robbery 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Brisman, 43 N.Y.3d 322, 324, 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 challenge to the duration of the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the order of protection on this ground (see People v. Crosby, 230 A.D.3d 597, 598, 214 N.Y.S.3d 794;  People v. Holmes, 206 A.D.3d 761, 762, 167 N.Y.S.3d 828).  Under the circumstances, we decline to reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a];  People v. Argudo, 232 A.D.3d 907, 908, 220 N.Y.S.3d 450).  “[T]he 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 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. Lloyd–Douglas, 208 A.D.3d 520, 522, 173 N.Y.S.3d 287).

CHAMBERS, J.P., DOWLING, WAN and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.