People v. Baker, 2014-00389, Ind. No. 670/09.

• Decision Date: 25 May 2016
• Docket Number: 2014-00389, Ind. No. 670/09.
• Citation: 139 A.D.3d 1078,32 N.Y.S.3d 288,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04066
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Joanne BAKER, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

139 A.D.3d 1078
32 N.Y.S.3d 288
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04066

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Joanne BAKER, appellant.

2014-00389, Ind. No. 670/09.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 25, 2016.

32 N.Y.S.3d 288

Marshall L. Goldstein, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, BETSY BARROS, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

139 A.D.3d 1078

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered November 19, 2013, which, upon a finding that she violated a condition of the probation previously imposed by the same court (Zambelli, J.), upon her admission, imposed, inter alia, an extended period of probation.

139 A.D.3d 1079

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Following the defendant's admission to a violation of probation, the County Court modified her sentence by tolling the five-year period of probation for a period of nine months from February 19, 2013, through November 19, 2013, thereby adding nine months to the term of probation, with the same terms and conditions and the addition of 100 hours of community service.

The defendant challenges the original probation condition that bars her from reapplying for her dentistry license. However, this Court's rejection of the defendant's claim on her prior appeal (see People v. Baker, 104 A.D.3d 783, 784, 960 N.Y.S.2d 511 ) “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of ‘manifest error’ in the prior decision or that ‘exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine,’ the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v. Martinez, 194 A.D.2d 741, 741–742, 600 N.Y.S.2d 250, quoting People v. Barnes, 155 A.D.2d 468, 469, 547 N.Y.S.2d 131 ; see People v. Riley, 22...