People v. Brownlow

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 2026
Docket2023-08047
StatusPublished

This text of People v. Brownlow (People v. Brownlow) 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. Brownlow, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

People v Brownlow - 2026 NY Slip Op 03819
skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau
Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

People v Brownlow

2026 NY Slip Op 03819

June 17, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Dayvon Brownlow, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on June 17, 2026

2023-08047, (Ind. No. 1039/21)

Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Barry E. Warhit

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Ariel Gootkin of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Toni Cimino, J., at plea; Frances Y. Wang, J., at sentence), rendered June 5, 2023, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant's contention that the duration of the orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing exceed the statutory maximum is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the orders of protection on this ground (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as CPL 530.13(4)(A) authorizes the court to issue an order of protection with a duration of eight years from the date of the expiration of the maximum term of the determinate sentence of imprisonment actually imposed (see id. § 530.13[4][A][ii]).

LASALLE, P.J., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Court Decisions

All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search

Resources

RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting & Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index

About

About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter

Quick Contact Info

17 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: (518) 453-6900

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

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)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Brownlow, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brownlow-nyappdiv-2026.