Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Ruz, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1988-01-14
Citations: 70 N.Y.2d 942
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Ruz, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 942–943

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Ruz, Appellant.
Argued January 5, 1988;
decided January 14, 1988
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Elizabeth J. Vila, Philip L. Weinstein and Helen A. Marino for appellant.
Paul T. Gentile, District Attorney (David K. Bertan and Billie Manning of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant acknowledges that the sentencing court had statutory power to impose the surcharge mandated by Penal Law § 60.35 (see by contrast, People v David, 65 NY2d 809, 810; People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 156). However, he now maintains for the first time that the surcharge was unconstitutional as applied to him, in that it violated the ex post facto prohibition contained in the Federal Constitution (US Const, art I, § 10 [cl 1]). By not bringing this issue to the attention of the court at the time of sentence, defendant failed to preserve it for our review (People v Ingram, 67 NY2d 897; People v Lemon, 62 NY2d 745).
Defendant's additional constitutional challenges to the statute are similarly unpreserved (see also, People v Barnes, 62 NY2d 702).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.