| People v Christian |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 08679 [156 AD3d 716] |
| December 13, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lionel Christian, Appellant. |
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Yael V. Levy and W. Thomas Hughes ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy,J.), rendered August 15, 2016, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the third degree, upon hisplea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlyentered because the Supreme Court did not adequately inform him of the consequences of hisplea on a determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see CorrectionLaw art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]). Although this contention survives his valid waiver of the rightto appeal (see People v Bernardini,142 AD3d 671 [2016]; People vVere, 44 AD3d 690 [2007]; People v Melio, 6 AD3d 552, 553 [2004]; People vHussain, 309 AD2d 818 [2003]), it is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendantdid not move to withdraw his plea prior to the imposition of the sentence (see CPL220.60 [3]; 440.10; People v Bernardini, 142 AD3d at 671; People v Magnotta, 137 AD3d1303 [2016]; People vHolcombe, 116 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2014]; People v Smith, 85 AD3d 1065 [2011]; People v Torres, 54 AD3d 976,977 [2008]; People v Melio, 6 AD3d at 553; People v Hussain, 309 AD2d at818). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 550 [2010]; People vMagnotta, 137 AD3d at 1303; People v Holcombe, 116 AD3d at 1064; People vSmith, 85 AD3d at 1065; People v Vere, 44 AD3d at 691).
The defendant's contentions relating to his designation as a level two sex offender after aSORA hearing are not properly before this Court. The notice of appeal was limited to thejudgment of conviction, and therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order issued inthe civil SORA proceeding (see Peoplev Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]). Rivera, J.P., Roman, LaSalle and Barros, JJ.,concur.