Opinion
2019–00027 Ind. No. 495/18
05-27-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David GUIDICE, Appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Elena Tomaro and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Elena Tomaro and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered November 16, 2018, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal contempt in the first 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 the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges the issuance of an order of protection in favor of his children, effective until and including November 16, 2034. The defendant's challenges to the order of protection survive his waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of conviction (see People v. Kumar, 127 A.D.3d 882, 4 N.Y.S.3d 900 ; People v. Cedeno, 107 A.D.3d 734, 965 N.Y.S.2d 887 ), and may be raised on appeal from the judgment of conviction (see People v. Smith, 15 N.Y.3d 669, 674, 917 N.Y.S.2d 614, 942 N.E.2d 1039 ; People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 312, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ).
However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the issuance of the order of protection with respect to his biological children was proper since they were members of the victim's family and household (see CPL 530.13[4] ; People v. May, 138 A.D.3d 1146, 1147, 30 N.Y.S.3d 327 ; People v. Sabo, 117 A.D.3d 1089, 986 N.Y.S.2d 232 ; People v. Warren, 280 A.D.2d 75, 721 N.Y.S.2d 152 ). The defendant did not request a hearing with respect to the order of protection. The County Court noted that he could seek appropriate parental access by an order of the Family Court or the Supreme Court, and the order of protection so provides.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., AUSTIN, HINDS–RADIX and LASALLE, JJ., concur.