People v. Banks

2021 NY Slip Op 07311, 200 A.D.3d 1012, 155 N.Y.S.3d 785
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Banks. Read the opinion of the Court — 154 N.Y.S.3d 474
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 2021·No. Ind. No. 19-00237·Published

Opinion

People v Banks (2021 NY Slip Op 07311)
People v Banks
2021 NY Slip Op 07311
Decided on December 22, 2021
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 December 22, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
PAUL WOOTEN
JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.

2020-07996
(Ind. No. 19-00237)

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

v

Damien Banks, appellant.


The Law Offices of Joseph S. Gulino, Jr., Esq., PLLC, White Plains, NY, for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Robert H. Freehill, J.), rendered October 1, 2020, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review five orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the five orders of protection issued at his sentencing should be vacated is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v May, 138 AD3d 1146, 1147), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction since the defendant agreed to the issuance of these orders as part of his plea agreement (see People v Smith, 83 AD3d 1213, 1214).

The defendant's contention that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to make the orders of protection in favor of his daughters subject to Family Court modification and in prohibiting all forms of contact between him and his daughters is without merit (cf. People v Lewis, 69 AD3d 1232, 1235).

RIVERA, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WOOTEN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

People v. Banks, 2021 NY Slip Op 07311, 200 A.D.3d 1012, 155 N.Y.S.3d 785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

2021 NY Slip Op 07311 (People v. Banks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lewis
69 A.D.3d 1232 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Smith
83 A.D.3d 1213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. May
138 A.D.3d 1146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)