- October 18, 2019
Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for
appellant, and appellant pro se.
Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove,
Solomon Neubort, and Richard K. Farrell of counsel), for
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL COLLEEN D. DUFFY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings
County (Ruth Shillingford, J.), rendered June 20, 2014,
convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree,
attempted grand larceny in the second degree, offering a
false instrument for filing in the first degree (six counts),
falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, and
criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,
and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review orders
of protection issued at the time of sentencing.
that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the orders
of protection as directed that they remain in effect until
and including June 20, 2034, are vacated, as a matter of
discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is
remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new
determination of the duration of the orders of protection,
taking into account the defendant's jail-time credit; and
it is further, ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the
evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see
CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492).
In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60
N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to
establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
as to each of the crimes. Moreover, in fulfilling our
responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight
of the evidence (see CPL 470.15; People v
Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349), we are satisfied that
the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the
evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633).
defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
based solely upon his counsel's failure to preserve for
appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally
insufficient to support all of his convictions, is without
merit (see People v Edwards, 164 A.D.3d 830, 831).
defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental
brief, that the evidence before the grand jury was legally
insufficient to support the charges of which he was convicted
is not reviewable on appeal, as the defendant was convicted
at trial based on legally sufficient evidence (see
CPL 210.30; People v McCray, 61 A.D.3d 999).
sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v
Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
People concede, the duration of the orders of protection
issued at sentencing exceeded the maximum time limit set
forth in CPL 530.13(4) and failed to take into consideration
the defendant's jail-time credit. Accordingly, we vacate
so much of the orders of protection as directed that they
remain in effect until and including June 20, 2034, and remit
the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new
determination of the duration of the orders of protection
(see People v Gooding, 174 A.D.3d 642, 643;
People v Ramos, 164 A.D.3d 922, 923-924).
defendant's remaining contentions raised in his pro se