Opinion
January 18, 2001.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (La Buda, J.), rendered February 19, 1999, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
Bernice R. Dozoretz, Binghamton, for appellant.
Donald A. Williams, District Attorney (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), Kingston, for respondent.
Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Following defendant's plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated, County Court sentenced him to a 60-day jail term and five years' probation. The court further directed that defendant pay restitution in the amount of $3,500 to the victim in monthly installments of $100. Defendant was subsequently brought before County Court on a declaration of delinquency which alleged numerous violations of his probation conditions, including the failure to pay restitution as directed (the declaration notes, however, that defendant had paid $301 toward restitution). Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to violating probation and was sentenced to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. The monetary component of the original sentence was continued with County Court ordering defendant to pay the balance due the victim, namely, $3,199.
This sum obviously represents the amount of restitution imposed ($3,500) less the amount actually paid by defendant ($301).
Not only did defendant waive the right to appeal the original conviction, he did not appeal or otherwise challenge the original conviction or the sentence imposed thereunder. Thus, his present challenge to the amount of restitution imposed, particularly his claim that a hearing should have been held to verify the victim's actual loss, is foreclosed (see, People v. Panek, 256 A.D.2d 1238, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 856; People v. Ambriati, 239 A.D.2d 948, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 901;People v. Holmes, 226 A.D.2d 1122, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 966; People v. Rutnik, 198 A.D.2d 617; see also, People v. Stedge, 250 A.D.2d 880;People v. Hosien, 204 A.D.2d 658, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 1004). We have reviewed defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the context of the parole violation proceeding and find it to be without merit, as the record reveals that he in fact received meaningful representation (see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.