| People v Meyer |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 09005 [156 AD3d 1421] |
| December 22, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MaryMeyer, Appellant. |
Linda M. Campbell, Syracuse, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Nicole K. Intschert of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), renderedDecember 8, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larcenyin the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty ofgrand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.40 [1]). We agree withdefendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because "the minimal inquiry made byCounty Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequatecolloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" (People v Hassett, 119 AD3d 1443,1443-1444 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 961 [2014] [internal quotation marksomitted]). In addition, "there is no basis [in the record] upon which to conclude that the courtensured 'that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from thoserights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty' " (People v Jones, 107 AD3d 1589, 1590 [4th Dept 2013], lvdenied 21 NY3d 1075 [2013], quoting People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]).
Defendant contends that there is no basis in the record supporting the amount of restitutionand that the court should have conducted a hearing before determining the amount thereof.Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review by failing to object to the impositionof restitution at sentencing or to request a hearing (see People v M&M Med. Transp., Inc., 147 AD3d 1313,1314-1315 [4th Dept 2017]; People vLewis, 114 AD3d 1310, 1311 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1200[2014]; People v Spossey, 107AD3d 1420, 1420 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1159 [2014]). In any event,that contention is without merit inasmuch as defendant "concede[d] the facts necessary toestablish the amount of restitution as part of [the] plea allocution" (People v Consalvo, 89NY2d 140, 145 [1996]; see People v Price, 277 AD2d 955, 955-956 [4th Dept 2000]).Contrary to defendant's further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Winslow, JJ.