People v. Gant

2025 NY Slip Op 05160

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: September 25, 2025
• Docket: Ind. No. 73055/22; Appeal No. 4735; Case No. 2024-03726
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Gant (2025 NY Slip Op 05160)

People v Gant

2025 NY Slip Op 05160

Decided on September 25, 2025

Appellate Division, First 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 and Entered: September 25, 2025
Before: Webber, J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer, Higgitt, Hagler, JJ.

Ind. No. 73055/22|Appeal No. 4735|Case No. 2024-03726|

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

v

Bahiyud Gant, Defendant-Appellant.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Benjamin Wiener of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Addison Eisley of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J., at plea, Brendan T. Lantry, J., at sentencing), rendered May 9, 2024, convicting defendant, of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to time served and issuing a final order of protection for the benefit of the victim and the parties' child, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied 589 US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). The combination of the court's oral colloquy with defendant, and the written waiver he signed after consultation with counsel, established that defendant had been adequately apprised of the appellate rights he was waiving (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]).

Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court misapprehended its sentencing authority (People v Diaby, 172 AD3d 473, 473-474 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1068 [2019]; People v Giacchi, 154 AD3d 544, 545 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1105 [2018]), and we decline to consider it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the sentencing court de facto exercised its discretion in declining to modify the order of protection, and in making the order of protection subject to Family Court modification.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: September 25, 2025