The People, etc., respondent, v. Derek Ratcliff, appellant. (2026)

Submitted—June 15, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

A/

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Claudia Daniels–DePeyster, J.), both rendered December 6, 2023, convicting him of criminal possession of a firearm under Indictment No. 71746/22, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree under Indictment No. 73769/22, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

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

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248;  People v. Stepney, 244 AD3d 875, 875).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentences imposed were excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255).

The defendant's challenge to a condition of his probation, specifically, Condition No. 14, for the most part, was not precluded by the waiver of the right to appeal, and that challenge did not require preservation (see People v. Larkin, 243 AD3d 591, 591–592;  People v. Dranchuk, 203 AD3d 741, 742).  This Court, in People v. Sobers (235 AD3d 908, 909–910), held that “Condition No. 14, requiring that the defendant ‘[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities,’ was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense and therefore, was not reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or necessary to insure that he will lead a law-abiding life.”  As the People correctly concede, those principles are applicable here, and that condition should be deleted (see People v. Larkin, 243 AD3d at 592).  The defendant's constitutional challenge to so much of this condition as required him to “meet other family responsibilities” is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Bruno, 244 AD3d 1227, 1228;  People v. Francis, 244 AD3d 1135, 1136), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

CONNOLLY, J.P., VOUTSINAS, GOLIA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court