PEOPLE v. TIPPA (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Jessica Segal, J.), rendered April 3, 2025, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review two orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

ORDERED that upon the appeal from the judgment, the order of protection issued in favor of H.P. at the time of sentencing is vacated, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defendant did not object to the duration of the order of protection in favor of K. B., he had no practical ability to do so, since the County Court did not state the duration at either the plea or sentencing proceedings (see People v. Sosa, 246 AD3d 943, 944; People v. Daniel, 233 AD3d 704, 704–705). Thus, the rule of preservation does not apply (see People v. Williams, 235 AD3d 1017, 1017; People v. Newman, 234 AD3d 877, 878). However, the defendant's contention regarding the duration of that order of protection is without merit (see CPL 530.13[4][A]; People v. Zhiminaicela–Duchitanga, 214 AD3d 1005, 1005).

The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly issued an order of protection in favor of H.P. is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316–318), but we nevertheless reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. As the defendant correctly contends, the court had no authority to issue an order of protection in favor of that individual, as they were neither a victim of nor witness to the crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty (see CPL 530.13[4]; People v. Gilyard, 237 AD3d at 1223; People v. Alvarado, 235 AD3d 889).

Accordingly, we vacate the order of protection issued in favor of H.P. at the time of sentencing.

The defendant's contentions regarding the voluntariness of his plea are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Williams, 27 NY3d 212, 221–222; People v. Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 363) and, in any event, without merit.

GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, WARHIT and QUIRK, JJ., concur.