| People v Sterngast |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 07457 [211 AD3d 1043] |
| December 28, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Megan Sterngast, Appellant. |
Samuel S. Coe, New York, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Edward D. Saslaw of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Craig S. Brown, J.), rendered July 20, 2021, convicting her of grand larceny in thefourth degree and petit larceny, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In January 2020, the defendant entered into a plea agreement wherein she agreed toenter a plea of guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree, a felony, and petit larceny, amisdemeanor, in exchange for a one-year term of interim probation. Pursuant to theagreement, if the defendant complied with all of the conditions of the interim probation,at the conclusion of the year, she would be permitted to withdraw her plea of guilty to thefelony charge and enter a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor charge only.
In May 2021, the County Court held an inquiry as to whether the defendant hadsuccessfully completed her interim probation. After the People presented evidence thatthe defendant had not successfully completed the required number of community servicehours, the court found that the defendant had not successfully completed her interimprobation, and sentenced her to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of1
The County Court correctly determined that the defendant did not successfullycomplete her interim probation. The court afforded the defendant a full opportunity to beheard and conducted an inquiry of "sufficient depth to enable [it] to determine that [the]defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of [her] interim probation" (People v Wissert, 85 AD3d1633, 1634 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Outley,80 NY2d 702, 703 [1993]). The court's determination that the defendant did notcomplete the conditions of her interim probation was supported by sufficient reliable andaccurate information (seePeople v Mays, 181 AD3d 874, 875 [2020]).
The defendant's contentions that the community service obligation was excessive andthat the County Court inhibited her ability to perform community service by remandingher for approximately one month are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline toreach them in the [*2]exercise of our interest of justicejurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The defendant's remaining contentions arewithout merit. Connolly, J.P., Iannacci, Miller and Ford, JJ., concur.