| People v Guidice |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 03025 [183 AD3d 913] |
| May 27, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v David Guidice, Appellant. |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Elena Tomaro and Marion Tangof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Richard Ambro, J.), rendered November 16, 2018, convicting him of attempted robberyin the second degree (two counts) and criminal contempt in the first degree, upon his pleaof guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protectionissued at the time of sentencing.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges the issuance of an order of protection in favor of hischildren, effective until and including November 16, 2034. The defendant's challenges tothe order of protection survive his waiver of the right to appeal the judgment ofconviction (see People vKumar, 127 AD3d 882 [2015]; People v Cedeno, 107 AD3d 734 [2013]), and may beraised on appeal from the judgment of conviction (see People v Smith, 15 NY3d 669, 674 [2010]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d310, 312 [2004]).
However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the issuance of the order ofprotection with respect to his biological children was proper since they were members ofthe victim's family and household (see CPL 530.13 [4]; People v May, 138 AD3d1146, 1147 [2016]; Peoplev Sabo, 117 AD3d 1089 [2014]; People v Warren, 280 AD2d 75[2001]). The defendant did not request a hearing with respect to the order of protection.The County Court noted that he could seek appropriate parental access by an order of theFamily Court or the Supreme Court, and the order of protection so provides.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Scheinkman, P.J., Austin,Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.