The People, etc., respondent, v. Robert Youngs, appellant. (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The People, etc., respondent, v. Robert Youngs, appellant.

2022-00376

Decided: June 17, 2026

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P. LARA J. GENOVESI DEBORAH A. DOWLING JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ.

Paul N. Weber, Cornwall, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Cynthia Dolan, Robert H. Middlemiss, and Christopher Kelly of counsel), for respondent. Contrary to the defendant's additional contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, the County Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his omnibus motion which was to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution of the warrant. “A search warrant must be based upon information close enough in time to its issuance to justify a finding of probable cause at that time. Whether the proof meets this test must be determined by the circumstances of each case” (People v Fernandez, 210 AD3d 693, 694 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, considering all of the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the property to be seized, namely, photographs and videos of underage children engaged in sexual activity, the information provided in an affidavit was not stale for the purposes of establishing probable cause (see id.; People v Manngard, 275 A.D.2d 378, 379). Moreover, the search warrant was not overbroad in its description of the property to be seized (see People v Crupi, 172 AD3d 898, 899). The defendant's contentions that the search warrant was executed statutorily late and was overbroad in its execution are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, are without merit.

Submitted—April 30, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (William L. DeProspo, J.), rendered December 16, 2021, convicting him of predatory sexual assault against a child, possessing a sexual performance by a child, promoting a sexual performance by a child, and use of a child in a sexual performance, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is based on allegations of ineffectiveness that do not directly involve the plea negotiation process. Thus, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Ruiz–Solano, 188 AD3d 1267, 1268; People v. Vicente, 167 AD3d 951, 952).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied the defendant's request for assigned counsel, in substitution of his retained counsel, without inquiring into his finances, as the defendant made no showing of entitlement to assigned counsel to replace his retained counsel (see People v. Charles, 116 AD3d 967; People v. Wall, 56 AD3d 361, 362).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

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

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network