Court Opinion

ID: 9952836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 19:15:53.053994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:15.633483
License: Public Domain

People v Bynum (2024 NY Slip Op 01556)

People v Bynum

2024 NY Slip Op 01556

Decided on March 20, 2024

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 20, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
HELEN VOUTSINAS
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

2022-09665
 (Ind. No. 72530/21)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vTyreik Bynum, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Elisabeth R. Calcaterra of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley of counsel; Darci Wen Siegel on the brief), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rhonda Tomlinson, J.), rendered November 22, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the imposition of a mandatory surcharge and fees; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that Penal Law § 265.03 is unconstitutional in light of the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1), is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court (see People v Manners, 217 AD3d 683, 685), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Fulton, 222 AD3d 991, 992; People v Moise, 220 AD3d 811, 811).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
As consented to by the People, and pursuant to the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, we modify the judgment by vacating the surcharge and fees imposed on the defendant at sentencing (see CPL 420.35[2-a][c]; People v Jaaber, 223 AD3d 685).
LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, VOUTSINAS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court