Opinion
2015–01265 2015–01267 Ind. Nos. 203/14 1219/14
01-31-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jose RODRIGUEZ, appellant.
Warren S. Landau, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy and Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
Warren S. Landau, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy and Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Angelo A. Delligatti, J.), both rendered January 20, 2015, convicting him of aggravated family offense under Indictment No. 203/14, and criminal contempt in the first degree under Indictment No. 1219/14, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant correctly contends that the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ; People v. Mayo, 77 A.D.3d 683, 684, 908 N.Y.S.2d 353 ; People v. Olivier, 48 A.D.3d 486, 486, 849 N.Y.S.2d 790 ). In any event, the defendant's contentions about the duration of the orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing survive even a valid appeal waiver (see People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ; People v. Gibson–Parish, 153 A.D.3d 1273, 59 N.Y.S.3d 702 ; People v. Kumar, 127 A.D.3d 882, 883, 4 N.Y.S.3d 900 ; People v. Cedeno, 107 A.D.3d 734, 734, 965 N.Y.S.2d 887 ).
However, the defendant's challenge to the duration of the orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the orders on this ground (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d at 316–318, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ; People v. Smith, 147 A.D.3d 791, 791, 45 N.Y.S.3d 808 ; People v. Kumar, 127 A.D.3d at 883, 4 N.Y.S.3d 900 ; People v. Maxineau, 78 A.D.3d 732, 732, 909 N.Y.S.2d 659 ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v. Smith, 147 A.D.3d at 791, 45 N.Y.S.3d 808 ; People v. Kumar, 127 A.D.3d at 883, 4 N.Y.S.3d 900 ; People v. Maxineau, 78 A.D.3d at 732, 909 N.Y.S.2d 659 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.