Crimes - Appeal - Valid Waiver of Right to Appeal - Excessive Sentence Claim Foreclosed

Crimes - Sentence - Probation - Probation Condition Reasonably Necessary to Insure Defendant Would Lead Law-AbidingLife or Assist Them in Doing So

Crimes - Appeal - Valid Waiver of Right to Appeal - Constitutional As-Applied Challenges to Probation Condition Foreclosed

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J., at plea; Ralph A. Fabrizio, J.,at sentencing), rendered July 5, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attemptedcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to five years ofprobation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied 589US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim. Inany event, there is no basis for reducing his sentence.

Defendant's challenge to the condition of his probation requiring him to "[a]void injurious orvicious habits; refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places; and . . . notconsort with disreputable people" under Penal Law § 65.10 (1) survives defendant'swaiver of the right to appeal and does not require preservation (see People v Alvarez, 233 AD3d619, 620 [1st Dept 2024]). However, the court providently deemed this condition"reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him todo so," given that defendant was found in possession of a loaded pistol and small amount ofcocaine, and the Department of Probation's recommendation that defendant participate in drugcounseling services based on his reportedly daily use of marijuana (see Penal Law§ 65.10 [1], [2]; seegenerally People v Hancarik, 202 AD3d 1151, 1152 [3d Dept 2022]).

Defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his constitutionalas-applied challenges to the probation condition under the First Amendment and the vaguenessdoctrine of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (see People v Johnson, 225 AD3d453, 454 [1st Dept 2024], lv granted 42 NY3d 953 [2024]). In any event, the claimsare unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice (see People v Cabrera, 41 NY3d 35,42-51 [2023]; see also People vBaumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 NY3d 404, 408 [2006]). Concur—Kern,J.P., Kennedy, González, Shulman, Rodriguez, JJ.