People v. Durinko

2025 NY Slip Op 03465
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 6, 2025
Docket421 KA 24-00759
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 03465 (People v. Durinko) 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. Durinko, 2025 NY Slip Op 03465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

People v Durinko (2025 NY Slip Op 03465)
People v Durinko
2025 NY Slip Op 03465
Decided on June 6, 2025
Appellate Division, Fourth 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 June 6, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CURRAN, SMITH, DELCONTE, AND HANNAH, JJ.

421 KA 24-00759

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

PAUL J. DURINKO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

VINCENT A. HEMMING, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (MATTHEW J. DILLON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M. Mohun, J.), rendered March 6, 2023. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [7]) and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [3]), defendant contends that the enhanced sentence imposed following his violation of the terms of the plea agreement is unduly harsh and severe. Defendant, however, knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 565-566 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Brown, 229 AD3d 1150, 1150-1151 [4th Dept 2024]) and, because County Court advised defendant of the maximum sentence that could be imposed if he violated the plea agreement, that waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the enhanced sentence (see People v Ney, 229 AD3d 1251, 1252-1253 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1021 [2024]; People v Roberto, 224 AD3d 1367, 1368 [4th Dept 2024]; People v VanDeViver, 56 AD3d 1118, 1119 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 931 [2009], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 788 [2009]).

Entered: June 6, 2025

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

§ 431
New York JUD § 431
§ 220.16
New York PEN § 220.16

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 03465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-durinko-nyappdiv-2025.