People v. Eladdioui

Opinion

People v Eladdioui

2026 NY Slip Op 04874

August 5, 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

Abdullatif Eladdioui, appellant.

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

Decided on August 5, 2026

2025-01666, (Ind. No. 57/23)

Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.

Deborah A. Dowling

Lillian Wan

Phillip Hom, JJ.

Arza Feldman, Manhasset, NY (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

Anthony P. Parisi, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Winter A. Vega of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Jessica Segal, J.), rendered June 27, 2024, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255).

While a challenge to the legality of a sentence survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see id.), the defendant's contention that his sentence was illegal because the County Court improperly considered a juvenile delinquency adjudication in imposing sentence, in violation of Family Court Act § 381.2, does not amount to a "'claim that the sentence is illegal in the sense that it violates or exceeds the statutory scheme which sets forth the parameters of an appropriate sentence for [the] crime. What the defendant actually challenges is the severity of [his] sentence, and this claim can be waived'" (People v Miranda, 242 AD3d 1124, 1124, quoting People v Brathwaite, 263 AD2d 89, 92). Thus, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of this contention (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255).

To the extent that the defendant claims that he was illegally sentenced as a predicate felony offender, that contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Spencer, 149 AD3d 983, 983). However, the defendant's contention that the County Court improperly, in effect, treated the juvenile delinquency adjudication as a predicate offense is unpreserved for appellate review (see id. at 984). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit.

GENOVESI, J.P., DOWLING, WAN and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court