People v. Lewin

2025 NY Slip Op 06731
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 3, 2025
DocketInd. No. 72648/22
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 06731 (People v. Lewin) 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. Lewin, 2025 NY Slip Op 06731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

People v Lewin (2025 NY Slip Op 06731)

People v Lewin
2025 NY Slip Op 06731
Decided on December 3, 2025
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 December 3, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
JANICE A. TAYLOR
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.

2024-05798
(Ind. No. 72648/22)

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

v

Demar Lewin, appellant.


Law Offices of Christina T. Hall & Associates, PLLC, Harrison, NY (Jonathan Rosenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Susan Cacace, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Steven A. Bender and Raffaelina Gianfrancesco of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Robert J. Prisco, J.), rendered May 31, 2024, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Foy, 238 AD3d 784, 785; People v Corines, 204 AD3d 827, 828). The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833; People v Oneal, 202 AD3d 710, 710).

However, the defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent survives the valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Corines, 204 AD3d at 828). Nonetheless, the record as a whole and the circumstances surrounding the entry of the plea reveal that the defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see id.; People v Sulaiman, 134 AD3d 860, 861).

The defendant's remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review.

CONNOLLY, J.P., WOOTEN, TAYLOR 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. Kemp
724 N.E.2d 754 (New York Court of Appeals, 1999)
People v. Sulaiman
134 A.D.3d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Oneal
158 N.Y.S.3d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Corines
204 A.D.3d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 06731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lewin-nyappdiv-2025.