Opinion
06-10-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William J. DOLAN, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
The Law Office of Guy A. Talia, Rochester (Guy A. Talia of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Leanne K. Moser, District Attorney, Lowville, D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (John A. Cirando of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Lewis County Court (Daniel R. King, J.), rendered July 18, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree.
The Law Office of Guy A. Talia, Rochester (Guy A. Talia of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Leanne K. Moser, District Attorney, Lowville, D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (John A. Cirando of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.80[1][b] ), defendant challenges only the scope of the order of protection issued by County Court pursuant to CPL 530.12(5). As conceded by the People, the scope of the order of protection prohibiting defendant from having unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 17 years is “overly broad inasmuch as it extends to individuals unrelated to the criminal action” (People v. Shultis, 61 A.D.3d 1116, 1118, 876 N.Y.S.2d 740, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 929, 884 N.Y.S.2d 710, 912 N.E.2d 1091 ; see People v. Raduns, 70 A.D.3d 1355, 1355, 896 N.Y.S.2d 541, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 891, 903 N.Y.S.2d 779, 929 N.E.2d 1014, reconsideration denied 15 N.Y.3d 808, 908 N.Y.S.2d 168, 934 N.E.2d 902 ; see generally People v. Cooke, 119 A.D.3d 1399, 1401, 989 N.Y.S.2d 753, affd. 24 N.Y.3d 1196, 3 N.Y.S.3d 755, 27 N.E.3d 469, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 542, 193 L.Ed.2d 434 ; People v. Konieczny, 2 N.Y.3d 569, 572, 780 N.Y.S.2d 546, 813 N.E.2d 626 ). Inasmuch as all individuals under age 17 were not defendant's victims or witnesses in this matter, the order of protection may not require defendant to stay away from all such individuals (see CPL 530.12[5] ; see also CPL 530.13[4] ). We modify the judgment by amending the order of protection accordingly.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by amending the order of protection to delete the provision prohibiting defendant from having “unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 17 years of age” and as modified the judgment is affirmed.
WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, and SCUDDER, JJ., concur.