Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose Rodriguez, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2018-01-31
Citations: 157 A.D.3d 971
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rodriguez, Appellant.
Judges: Chambers, J.P., Roman, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 971–971

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rodriguez, Appellant.
[67 NYS3d 485]

Opinion:
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Angelo A. Delligatti, J.), both rendered January 20, 2015, convicting him of aggravated family offense under indictment No. 203/14, and criminal contempt in the first degree under indictment No. 1219/14, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant correctly contends that the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Mayo, 77 AD3d 683, 684 [2010]; People v Olivier, 48 AD3d 486, 486 [2008]). In any event, the defendant's contentions about the duration of the orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing survive even a valid appeal waiver (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316 [2004]; People v Gibson-Parish, 153 AD3d 1273 [2017]; People v Kumar, 127 AD3d 882, 883 [2015]; People v Cedeno, 107 AD3d 734, 734 [2013]).
However, the defendant's challenge to the duration of the orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the orders on this ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d at 316-318; People v Smith, 147 AD3d 791, 791 [2017]; People v Kumar, 127 AD3d at 883; People v Maxineau, 78 AD3d 732, 732 [2010]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Smith, 147 AD3d at 791; People v Kumar, 127 AD3d at 883; People v Maxineau, 78 AD3d at 732).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Chambers, J.P., Roman, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.