People v. Crosby

2024 NY Slip Op 04212
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 14, 2024
DocketInd. No. 71815/21
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 04212 (People v. Crosby) 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. Crosby, 2024 NY Slip Op 04212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

People v Crosby (2024 NY Slip Op 04212)
People v Crosby
2024 NY Slip Op 04212
Decided on August 14, 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 August 14, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
BARRY E. WARHIT
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.

2022-08164
(Ind. No. 71815/21)

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

v

James Crosby, appellant.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Steven C. Kuza of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jean M. Joyce of counsel; Lauren Slattery on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jill Hedy Konviser, J.), rendered September 19, 2022, convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the duration of the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the order of protection on this ground (see People v Holmes, 206 AD3d 761, 761; People v Alvarado, 200 AD3d 794, 794). Under the circumstances, we decline to reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. "[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 310, 317; see People v Lloyd-Douglas, 208 AD3d 520, 522; People v Holmes, 206 AD3d at 762).

BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and LANDICINO, 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)
People v. Alvarado
2021 NY Slip Op 06856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Lloyd-Douglas
208 A.D.3d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 04212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crosby-nyappdiv-2024.