People v. Louissant

2025 NY Slip Op 05201

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: Ind. No. 633/19; Appeal No. 4789; Case No. 2022-04656
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Louissant (2025 NY Slip Op 05201)

People v Louissant

2025 NY Slip Op 05201

Decided on September 30, 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 30, 2025
Before: Kern, J.P., Scarpulla, Kapnick, Gesmer, Hagler, JJ.

Ind. No. 633/19|Appeal No. 4789|Case No. 2022-04656|

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

v

Zachary Louissant, Defendant-Appellant.

Caprice R. Jenerson, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Theodore Jack of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Nicole Neckles of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J.), rendered October 4, 2022, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years, followed by three years of post-release supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied 589 US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v Ramirez, 226 AD3d 625, 625 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 940 [2024]). In any event, we perceive no basis to reduce defendant's sentence.

Defendant's challenge to the issuance of the order of protection is foreclosed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Gonzalez, 178 AD3d 440 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 941 [2020]), and, in any event, he forfeited it by his plea (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 570 [2004]). He also failed to preserve his claim (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-316 [2004]), and we decline to consider the claim in the interest of justice. In this regard, we note that defendant agreed to the terms of the order of protection. As an alternative holding, we find that the record sufficiently reflects the reasons for the imposition of the order of protection (see People v Gonzalez, 178 AD3d 440).

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

ENTERED: September 30, 2025