People v. Almonds

2025 NY Slip Op 02928
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 14, 2025
DocketInd. No. 72533/22
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 02928 (People v. Almonds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Almonds, 2025 NY Slip Op 02928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

People v Almonds (2025 NY Slip Op 02928)
People v Almonds
2025 NY Slip Op 02928
Decided on May 14, 2025
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 May 14, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
HELEN VOUTSINAS
CARL J. LANDICINO
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.

2023-03237
(Ind. No. 72533/22)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Shaquan Almonds, appellant.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Damian Jhagroo on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michael J. Yavinsky, J.), rendered March 21, 2023, convicting him of assault in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention concerning the duration of the order of protection issued against him at the time of sentencing survives his valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 560; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316). However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant neither raised this issue at sentencing nor moved to amend the final order of protection on this ground in the Supreme Court (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d at 315; People v Carryl, 169 AD3d 818, 820). We decline to review the defendant's contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, as "the better practice—and best use of judicial resources—is for a defendant seeking adjustment of [an order of protection] to request relief from the issuing court in the first instance, resorting to the appellate courts only if necessary" (People v Nieves, 2 NY3d at 317; see People v Cordero, 233 AD3d 1056, 1056).

CONNOLLY, J.P., VOUTSINAS, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Nieves
811 N.E.2d 13 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 02928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-almonds-nyappdiv-2025.