The People, etc., respondent, v. Lamar Grant, appellant. (2026)

Submitted—June 2, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

O/

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Susan Quirk, J.), rendered January 8, 2024, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

ORDERED that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the order of protection as directed that it remain in effect until and including January 7, 2036, is vacated, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the order of protection consistent herewith;  and it is further,

ORDERED that pending a new determination as to the duration of the order of protection, the order of protection shall remain in effect;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the duration of an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing exceeded the statutory maximum because the Supreme Court failed to credit him for jail time served.  Although the defendant did not object to the duration of the order of protection at the time of sentencing, he had no practical ability to register a timely objection on this ground, since the court did not announce the duration of the order of protection during either the plea or sentencing proceedings (see People v. Delaurentis, 216 AD3d 664, 665;  People v. Gonzalez, 207 AD3d 656, 657).  Thus, contrary to the People's contention, the rule of preservation does not apply (People v. Leon, 246 AD3d 766, 767;  see People v. Delaurentis, 216 AD3d at 665).

As the defendant correctly contends, and the People do not dispute, the duration of the order of protection exceeded the maximum period permissible under CPL 530.13(4)(A)(ii), which was eight years from the date of the expiration of the maximum term of the defendant's indeterminate sentence of imprisonment, since it did not take into account the defendant's jail-time credit (see id.;  People v. Alexis, 235 AD3d 888, 889;  People v. Newman, 234 AD3d 877, 878).

Accordingly, we vacate so much of the order of protection as directed that it remain in effect until and including January 7, 2036, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the order of protection (see People v. Newman, 234 AD3d at 878).  Pending a new determination as to the duration of the order of protection, the order of protection shall remain in effect.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WARHIT, HOM and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court