| People v Grof |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 01328 [158 AD3d 818] |
| February 28, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert Grof, Appellant. |
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (W. Thomas Hughes of counsel; Kyle H.Fitzpatrick on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (WilliamDonnino, J.), rendered April 29, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although a defendant's challenge to the validity of a waiver of indictment is not forfeited bya plea of guilty and is not precluded by any valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Yunga, 122 AD3d951, 951 [2014]), the defendant's contention that his waiver of indictment was renderedinvalid by the Supreme Court's correction of the proposed superior court information is withoutmerit. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the provisions of CPL 200.70 (1) do not govern thecorrection, since the correction, which was fully and accurately disclosed to the defendant and hisattorney, was made prior to the execution of the defendant's waiver of indictment and prior to thefiling of the superior court information (see CPL 195.40). In any event, the correction didnot prejudice the defendant on the merits (see CPL 200.70 [1]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in determining that it did not havethe authority at the time of sentencing to defer payment of the crime victim assistance fee and theDNA databank fee imposed pursuant to CPL 60.35 survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal(see People v Thompson, 150 AD3d1156, 1157 [2017]). However, his contention is without merit (see People v Jones, 26 NY3d 730[2016]). Dillon, J.P., Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ., concur.