| People v Langhorne |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01996 [60 AD3d 867] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Bernard Langhorne, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.),rendered December 5, 2006, convicting him of assault in the second degree and assault in thethird degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the duration of one of the final orders of protection issued at thetime of sentencing exceeds the maximum period permissible under CPL 530.13 (4). However,the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review because he did not raise thisissue at sentencing or move to amend the final order of protection on this ground (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]; Peoplev Anderson, 57 AD3d 794 [2008]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of ourinterest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Anderson, 57 AD3d 794[2008]; People v Dale, 43 AD3d1075, 1076 [2007]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing torequest a missing witness charge regarding one of the complainants because the defendant wasnot entitled to such a charge (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 198 [2003]; People v Hernandez, 43 AD3d1412, 1412-1413 [2007]; People v Webster, 248 AD2d 738, 739 [1998]). Moreover,the defendant's contention that he was deprived of due process by the prosecutor's refusal to offerimmunity to this witness is without merit (see [*2]CPL50.30; People v Chin, 67 NY2d 22, 32 [1986]; People v Singh, 47 AD3d 733, 734 [2008]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickersonand Chambers, JJ., concur.