People v Kornegay (Shaun)

[*1] People v Kornegay (Shaun) 2018 NY Slip Op 50489(U) Decided on April 6, 2018 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 6, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2015-1323 K CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Shaun Kornegay, Appellant.

Appellate Advocates (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant. Kings County District Attorney (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel and Julian Joiris of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr., J.), rendered May 6, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of petit larceny.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in a felony complaint with grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [5]), petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 165.40). After the felony charge of grand larceny in the fourth degree was dismissed and the proper notation was made on the face of the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL 180.50 (3) (a) (iii), defendant pleaded guilty to petit larceny in satisfaction of the remainder of the accusatory instrument. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, and a final order of protection was issued for him to stay away from the complainant for a period of five years.

Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the duration of the final order of protection issued at the time of sentencing exceeds the maximum period [*2]permissible for a class A misdemeanor under CPL 530.13 (4) (B), since he neither raised this issue at sentencing nor moved to amend the final order of protection on this ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]; People v Hunter, 135 AD3d 958 [2016]; People v Kumar, 127 AD3d 882 [2015]; People v Khan, 101 AD3d 903 [2012]). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Mitchell, 142 AD3d 1185 [2016]; Kumar, 127 AD3d 883; People v Smith, 112 AD3d 759 [2013]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 06, 2018