Peoplev.Cedeno

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Jun 5, 2013
965 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
965 N.Y.S.2d 887107 A.D.3d 7342013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4019

2013-06-5

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Luis CEDENO, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Joyce Slevin of counsel; Gregory Musso on the memorandum), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Joyce Slevin of counsel; Gregory Musso on the memorandum), for respondent.


Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dwyer J.), rendered September 30, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive ( see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645;People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222).

The defendant's contention concerning the duration of certain orders of protection survives his valid waiver of his right to appeal ( see People v. Smith, 83 A.D.3d 1213, 920 N.Y.S.2d 736;People v. Allen, 64 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 882 N.Y.S.2d 783;People v. Victor, 20 A.D.3d 927, 928, 799 N.Y.S.2d 843). The defendant, however, failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, since he neither raised this issue at sentencing nor moved to amend the final orders of protection on this ground ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316–318, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13;People v. Remington, 90 A.D.3d 678, 679, 933 N.Y.S.2d 891;People v. Foster, 87 A.D.3d 299, 304, 927 N.Y.S.2d 92;People v. Maxineau, 78 A.D.3d 732, 732, 909 N.Y.S.2d 659;People v. Langhorne, 60 A.D.3d 867, 875 N.Y.S.2d 529), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.