| People v Gabor |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 01427 [192 AD3d 824] |
| March 10, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jed Gabor, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Sam Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and ChristopherBlira-Koessler of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the memorandum), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John F.Zoll, J.), rendered June 27, 2019, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea ofguilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued atthe time of sentencing.
Ordered that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the order of protection asdirected that it remain in effect until and including June 26, 2031, is vacated, and the matter isremitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the duration of theorder of protection consistent herewith; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The duration of the order of protection, which was issued upon the defendant's conviction ofburglary in the third degree, is an issue properly before this Court on the appeal from thejudgment (see People v Nieves, 2NY3d 310, 315 [2004]). However, the defendant's contention with respect to the duration ofthe order is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not raise it at sentencing ormove to amend the order (see id. at 316-317; People v Sutki S., 185 AD3d 610,612 [2020]; People v Rodriguez,157 AD3d 971 [2018]). Nonetheless, we reach that contention in the exercise of our interestof justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Sutki S., 185 AD3d at612; People v Ramos, 164 AD3d922 [2018]; People v Ortiz, 25AD3d 811, 812 [2006]).
As the People correctly concede, the duration of the order of protection exceeded themaximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.13 (4) and failed to take into account the defendant'sjail-time credit. Accordingly, we vacate so much of the order as directed that it remain in effectuntil and including June 26, 2031, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County,for a new determination of the duration of the order (see People v Sutki S., 185 AD3d at612; People v Gooding, 174 AD3d642 [2019]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and we [*2]decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justicejurisdiction. Chambers, J.P., Miller, Duffy, LaSalle and Wooten, JJ., concur.