Opinion
2009-2243 S CR.
Decided June 17, 2011.
Consolidated appeal from a judgment and an amended judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Stephen L. Ukeiley, J.), rendered March 30, 2009 and September 14, 2009, respectively. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of violating Brookhaven Town Code § 82-3 (E) and sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and to a "conditional discharge to fix the items that are in disrepair" by May 14, 2009. The amended judgment, after a nonjury trial, upon a finding that defendant had violated his conditional discharge, sentenced him to pay an additional $600 fine and to an additional conditional discharge to repair the premises by October 14, 2009.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction and the amended judgment of conviction are affirmed.
PRESENT: TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ.
After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of violating section 82-3 (E) (neighborhood preservation requirements) of the Brookhaven Town Code and was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and to a "conditional discharge to fix the items that are in disrepair" by May 14, 2009. After a further nonjury trial, upon a finding that defendant had violated his conditional discharge, defendant was sentenced to pay an additional $600 fine and to an additional conditional discharge to repair the premises by October 14, 2009.
Defendant contends on appeal that he was the victim of selective enforcement of the law because his neighbor was also violating the Brookhaven Town Code but was not prosecuted. To properly preserve for review the affirmative defense of selective enforcement of the law, a defendant must present it in a pretrial motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument ( People v Carter, 86 AD2d 451, 453). As defendant raised this issue for the first time on appeal, he did not properly preserve it, and we decline to review this contention in the interest of justice.
We find defendant's other contentions raised on appeal to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the amended judgment of conviction are affirmed.
Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ. concur.