People v. Brye (Rodney)

69 Misc. 3d 126(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 51116(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: September 11, 2020
• Docket: 2017-2170 Q CR
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Brye (2020 NY Slip Op 51116(U)) [*1]

People v Brye (Rodney)

2020 NY Slip Op 51116(U) [69 Misc 3d 126(A)]

Decided on September 11, 2020

Appellate Term, Second Department

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

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 11, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., BERNICE D. SIEGAL, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
2017-2170 Q CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Rodney Brye, Appellant.

Feldman and Feldman (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Queens County District Attorney (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill and Nancy F. Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of conviction of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jerry M. Iannece, J.), rendered October 4, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated per se, and imposed sentence. The appeal brings up for review a determination of that court that a civil judgment should be entered as to the surcharge.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in an information with, among other things, driving while intoxicated per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]). Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated per se, in satisfaction of the accusatory instrument, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal, citing People v Jones (26 NY3d 730, 733 [2016]), is that the Criminal Court erred in deferring payment of the mandatory surcharge and fees without placing its reasons on the record or issuing a written order therefor. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Saldana, 67 Misc 3d 131[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50454[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. We note that the record establishes that upon being asked by the court whether a "[c]ivil judgment [should be] entered as to the surcharge," defense counsel replied, "[y]es" (see People v Rodriguez,162 AD3d 513 [2018]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., SIEGAL and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 11, 2020