People v. Argudo

2024 NY Slip Op 05986
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 27, 2024
DocketBETSY BARROS, J.P.
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 05986 (People v. Argudo) 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. Argudo, 2024 NY Slip Op 05986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

People v Argudo (2024 NY Slip Op 05986)
People v Argudo
2024 NY Slip Op 05986
Decided on November 27, 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 November 27, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
WILLIAM G. FORD
DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

2019-04958
2019-04959
(Ind. No. 579/18, S.C.I. No. 421/19)

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

v

Xavier Argudo, appellant.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anna Jouravleva of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Amanda Iannuzzi of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John F. Zoll, J.), both rendered April 8, 2019, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 579/18, and attempted burglary in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 421/19, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant's contentions regarding the validity and duration of orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing are unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise them at sentencing or move to amend the final orders of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-318; People v Ramos, 164 AD3d 922, 923). Under the circumstances, we decline to reach these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a]). "[T]he 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 Crosby, 230 AD3d 597, 598; People v Cherry, 225 AD3d 893, 893).

BARROS, J.P., MILLER, FORD and DOWLING, 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)
2024 NY Slip Op 05986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-argudo-nyappdiv-2024.