| People v Drayton |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09578 [79 AD3d 1529] |
| December 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shaleek Drayton,Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered November6, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of arson in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with arson in the second degree and burglary in the seconddegree after he entered his former girlfriend's apartment and started a fire, causing extensive propertydamage. In satisfaction of the indictment and other unindicted crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to arsonin the second degree. As part of the plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal and agreed tobe sentenced to up to 15 years in prison, to be followed by a five-year period of postreleasesupervision, and also to pay restitution. He was subsequently sentenced to a prison term of 13 years, tobe followed by five years of postrelease supervision, and was ordered to pay restitution in the amountof $17,656.39. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the restitution order is unpreserved for our review given hisfailure to request a hearing or challenge the amount of restitution at sentencing (see People v White, 66 AD3d 1130,1130-1131 [2009]; see also People vThomas, 71 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 893 [2010]). Notably,the record discloses that the payment of restitution was a condition of the plea agreement, defendanthad an opportunity to review the restitution order prior to sentencing and he consented to the same.Insofar as defendant challenges the legality of the amount of restitution ordered, we find this claim to bewithout merit. Although the amount exceeded the $15,000 limit set forth in Penal Law § 60.27(5) (a), the excess was authorized pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (5) (b) as the proof in therecord [*2]established that the amount was limited to the value of thevictim's property (see e.g. People vPump, 67 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 941 [2010]). Accordingly,we find no reason to disturb the judgment of conviction.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.