The People, etc., respondent, v. Wayne Francis, appellant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The People, etc., respondent, v. Wayne Francis, appellant.

2010–02996 (Ind.No. 432/09)

Decided: March 29, 2011

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO RANDALL T. ENG SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ. Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Barbara Kornblau of counsel;  Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.

Submitted—March 7, 2011


Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), rendered March 10, 2010, convicting him of identity theft in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the County Court erred in imposing restitution without a hearing because, inter alia, there was insufficient evidence in the record to allow the County Court to determine the amount he should pay.   However, since the defendant failed to request a restitution hearing, and did not object to the amount of restitution he was required to pay, his present claims regarding the imposition of restitution are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Horne, 97 N.Y.2d 404, 414 n 3;  People v. Nelson, 77 AD3d 973, lv denied 15 NY3d 954;  People v. Harris, 72 AD3d 1110, 1112;  People v. Isaacs, 71 AD3d 1161;  People v. Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138).

The defendant's challenge to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee also is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Ruz, 70 N.Y.2d 942, 943;  People v. Fauntleroy, 57 AD3d 1167, 1168;  People v. Ziolkowski, 9 AD3d 915;  People v. Acevedo, 243 A.D.2d 572, 573).



Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard