Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jeson LAMONTAGNE, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew D'Emic, J., at plea; Laura Johnson, J., at sentence), rendered October 4, 2019, convicting him of attempted assault in the second 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 October 3, 2028, is vacated, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, 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 the judgment is affirmed.
The duration of the order of protection, which was issued upon the defendant's conviction of attempted assault in the second degree, is an issue properly before this Court on the appeal from the judgment (see People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 315, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13). However, the defendant's contention regarding the duration of the order of protection issued at sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not raise the contention at sentencing or move to amend the order of protection (see People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d at 316–317, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13; People v. Sutki S., 185 A.D.3d 610, 612, 124 N.Y.S.3d 824; People v. Rodriguez, 157 A.D.3d 971, 67 N.Y.S.3d 485). Nonetheless, we reach that contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a]; People v. Sutki S., 185 A.D.3d at 612, 124 N.Y.S.3d 824; People v. Ramos, 164 A.D.3d 922, 923, 82 N.Y.S.3d 103; People v. Ortiz, 25 A.D.3d 811, 812, 809 N.Y.S.2d 153).
As the People concede, the duration of the order of protection exceeded the maximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.12(5)(A). Accordingly, we vacate so much of the order of protection as directed that it remain in effect until and including October 3, 2028, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the order of protection in accordance with CPL 530.12(5)(A) (see People v. Palaguachi, 35 A.D.3d 767, 767–768, 824 N.Y.S.2d 911; People v. Ortiz, 25 A.D.3d at 812, 809 N.Y.S.2d 153).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., RIVERA, MALTESE and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2019–12650
Decided: November 09, 2022
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)