Opinion
71 KA 19-02354
02-05-2021
DAVID P. ELKOVITCH, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
DAVID P. ELKOVITCH, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated family offense ( Penal Law § 240.75 [1] ) and two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree (§ 215.51 [c], [d]). Defendant contends that County Court erred in ordering him to pay restitution because restitution was not part of the plea agreement and the amount of restitution is not supported by the record. Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review inasmuch as he " ‘fail[ed] to object to the imposition of restitution at sentencing or to request a hearing’ " ( People v. Rodriguez , 173 A.D.3d 1840, 1841, 104 N.Y.S.3d 469 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 953, 110 N.Y.S.3d 627, 134 N.E.3d 626 [2019] ; see People v. Lee , 96 A.D.3d 1522, 1527-1528, 947 N.Y.S.2d 241 [4th Dept. 2012] ; see generally People v. Williams , 27 N.Y.3d 212, 219-225, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528 [2016] ). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c] ).