The defendant's contention with regard to the duration of the orders of protection is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not challenge the duration of the orders of protection at sentencing, or move to amend the orders of protection anytime thereafter (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d at 316–317, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ). Nonetheless, we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (seePeople v. Jeremiah, 194 A.D.3d 840, 840, 143 N.Y.S.3d 908 ; People v. Gabor, 192 A.D.3d 824, 824, 139 N.Y.S.3d 862 ). The duration of the orders of protection exceeded the maximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.13(4) since it failed to credit the defendant for time served.
Judge: Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 192 AD3d 824 (Queens)
Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 192 A.D.3d 824 (Queens)
05[2]; People v Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d at 316-317). Nonetheless, we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Jeremiah, 194 A.D.3d 840, 840; People v Gabor, 192 A.D.3d 824, 824). The duration of the orders of protection exceeded the maximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.13(4) since it failed to credit the defendant for time served.
05[2]; People v Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d at 316-317). Nonetheless, we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Jeremiah, 194 A.D.3d 840, 840; People v Gabor, 192 A.D.3d 824, 824). The duration of the orders of protection exceeded the maximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.13(4) since it failed to credit the defendant for time served.