| People v Rodriguez |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00572 [157 AD3d 971] |
| January 31, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jose Rodriguez, Appellant. |
Warren S. Landau, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Yael V. Levy and Laurie K. Gibbons ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Angelo A. Delligatti, J.), both rendered January 20, 2015, convicting him of aggravated familyoffense under indictment No. 203/14, and criminal contempt in the first degree under indictmentNo. 1219/14, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant correctly contends that the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,256 [2006]; People v Mayo, 77AD3d 683, 684 [2010]; People vOlivier, 48 AD3d 486, 486 [2008]). In any event, the defendant's contentions about theduration of the orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing survive even a valid appealwaiver (see People v Nieves, 2NY3d 310, 316 [2004]; People vGibson-Parish, 153 AD3d 1273 [2017]; People v Kumar, 127 AD3d 882, 883 [2015]; People v Cedeno, 107 AD3d 734,734 [2013]).
However, the defendant's challenge to the duration of the orders of protection issued at thetime of sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not raise this issue atsentencing or move to amend the orders on this ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vNieves, 2 NY3d at 316-318; Peoplev Smith, 147 AD3d 791, 791 [2017]; People v Kumar, 127 AD3d at 883; People v Maxineau, 78 AD3d 732,732 [2010]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction(see People v Smith, 147 AD3d at 791; People v Kumar, 127 AD3d at 883;People v Maxineau, 78 AD3d at 732).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Chambers, J.P., Roman, Miller andDuffy, JJ., concur.