| People v Chattley |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02411 [49 AD3d 1307] |
| March 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Blair B.Chattley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (Shawn P. Hennessy of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), renderedJuly 20, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of reckless endangermentin the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matterof discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by providing that the order of protectionshall expire on May 18, 2009 and as modified the judgment is affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofreckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20) and unlawfulimprisonment in the second degree (§ 135.05). Contrary to defendant's contentions, theconviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight ofthe evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Althoughdefendant has not preserved his contention that the duration of the order of protection wasimproper (see People v Nieves, 2NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]; Peoplev Heise, 41 AD3d 1255 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]), wenevertheless exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice(see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). At the time of defendant's conviction, an order of protectioncould not exceed three years from the date of conviction (see CPL 530.13 [former (4)]).Supreme Court improperly set the order of protection to expire three years after the date ofsentencing, July 20, 2006, rather than three years after the date of the conviction, May 18, 2006.We therefore modify the judgment by providing that the order of protection shall expire on May18, 2009.
Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict isrepugnant (see People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987 [1985]), and we decline to exerciseour power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (seeCPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.