| People v Anastasiou |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 04748 [162 AD3d 1062] |
| June 27, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v John Anastasiou, Appellant. |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Timothy P. Finnerty of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (William J.Condon, J.), rendered September 30, 2016, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (ninecounts), upon his plea of guilty, imposing sentence, including a direction that the defendant makerestitution in the sum of $1,000, and issuing two restitution judgment orders.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, byvacating the provisions of the sentence directing the defendant to make restitution in the sum of$1,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the two restitution judgment orders arevacated.
Although the defendant's contention that the County Court violated the plea agreement bydirecting him to make restitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Sims, 146 AD3d 820,821 [2017]), we reach the issue in the interest of justice. The court erred in directing thedefendant to make restitution, as there is no indication in the plea minutes that the defendant'splea of guilty was negotiated with terms that included restitution. Under the circumstances of thiscase, and in accordance with the sole remedy sought by the defendant with respect to this claim,we deem it appropriate to vacate the direction that he make restitution and the two restitutionjudgment orders so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant inexchange for his plea of guilty (seePeople v Sheats, 138 AD3d 894, 894-895 [2016]; People v Nilsen, 129 AD3d 994, 995 [2015]; People v Thompson, 105 AD3d1067 [2013]; People vEsquivel, 100 AD3d 652, 652-653 [2012]; People v Bruno, 73 AD3d 941, 942 [2010]).
[*2] The defendant received the minimum authorized term ofimprisonment and postrelease supervision, so we have no authority to reduce those componentsof his sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Barber, 106 AD3d 1533, 1534 [2013]; People v Fiorello, 97 AD3d 763,763 [2012]; People v Doumbia, 75AD3d 422, 422 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.