PEOPLE v. SAMUELS (2018)

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Defendant was charged in two accusatory instruments, which each alleged one count of petit larceny as well as a a variety of other offenses arising from, among other things, defendant's unauthorized use of a credit card to purchase a $419 item of jewelry. Defendant pleaded guilty to each charge of petit larceny in satisfaction of both instruments, and the Criminal Court authorized a five-year order of protection on behalf of the rightful owner of the credit card. Neither at the plea proceedings, when the prosecutor announced his request for an order of protection, nor at sentencing, when the order issued, did defendant object either to the fact of the order or to its duration. Thus, defendant's present claims—that there was no necessity for an order of protection and that the trial court failed to articulate its reasons for the order's issuance (see CPL 530.13 [4] )—are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Powell, 158 AD3d 824 [2018]; People v. Rodriguez, 157 AD3d 971 [2018]; People v. Mitchell, 142 AD3d 1185 [2016]; People v. O'Connor, 136 AD3d 945 [2016]; People v. Hickey, 60 Misc 3d 137[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51110[U], *3 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018] ), and we decline to review the claims in the interest of justice. If it is defendant's view that the order of protection is no longer necessary, defendant's remedy, if he be so advised, is an application to the trial court to amend or vacate the order (see People v. Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 317 [2014]; People v. Gibson-Parish, 153 AD3d 1273 [2017]; People v. O'Connor, 136 AD3d 945; People v. Kumar, 127 AD3d 882, 883 [2015] ).

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., PESCE and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.