People v. Kumar

• Decision Date: 08 April 2015
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ravi KUMAR, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

127 A.D.3d 882
4 N.Y.S.3d 900 (Mem)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02985

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent
v.
Ravi KUMAR, appellant.

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

April 8, 2015.

Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.

Opinion

127 A.D.3d 882

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered November 22, 2010, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

127 A.D.3d 883

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

While the defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 ; People v. Brown, 122 A.D.3d 133, 992 N.Y.S.2d 297 ), his contentions concerning an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing survive his appeal waiver (see People v. Cedeno, 107 A.D.3d 734, 965 N.Y.S.2d 887 ). However, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention regarding the duration of the order of protection (see CPL 470.05[2] ;

4 N.Y.S.3d 901

People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316–318, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13 ; People v. Smith, 112 A.D.3d 759, 976 N.Y.S.2d 564 ; People v. Morrisohn, 111 A.D.3d 853, 975 N.Y.S.2d 350 ), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Notably, the Court of Appeals has held that “the better practice—and best use of judicial resources—is for a defendant seeking adjustment of [final orders of protection] to request relief from the issuing court in the first instance” whereby a defendant “can expeditiously obtain correction of the orders and, even if not successful, will have created a record that will...