People v. Seymore

2026 NY Slip Op 00028

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Seymore (2026 NY Slip Op 00028)

People v Seymore

2026 NY Slip Op 00028

Decided on January 06, 2026

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: January 06, 2026
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Mendez, Shulman, Hagler, JJ.

SCI. No. 74655/23|Appeal No. 5503|Case No. 2023-05631|

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

v

Teon Seymore, Appellant.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David J. Klem of counsel), for appellant.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Gaffey, J.), rendered September 26, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to three years of probation, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking the condition of probation prohibiting defendant "from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia" or "having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation," and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied 589 US —, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v Nunez, 220 AD3d 597, 597 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 1004 [2024]). In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant's challenges to certain conditions of probation under Penal Law § 65.10(1) survive his valid waiver of his right to appeal and do not require preservation (see People v Berkley, 241 AD3d 1167 [1st Dept 2025]). Regarding the condition of probation requiring him to "[a]void injurious or vicious habits; refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places; and . . . not consort with disreputable people," the court providently deemed this condition "reasonably necessary to [e]nsure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so," given that defendant was convicted for a second felony drug offense (Penal Law §§ 65.10[1], [2]; see People v Berkley, 241 AD3d at 1168; People v Lombard, 241 AD3d 1126, 1126 [1st Dept 2025]). However, the probation condition requiring defendant to "[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation" must be stricken because there is no evidence that defendant's actions were connected to gang activity or that he had a history of gang membership, rendering this condition neither reasonably related to his rehabilitation nor necessary to ensure that he leads a law-abiding life (see People v Vasquetelles, 241 AD3d 1208, 1209 [1st Dept 2025]; Penal Law § 65.10[1]).

Defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his constitutional challenges to the probation conditions under the First Amendment and the vagueness doctrine of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (see People v Lowndes, 239 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2025]). In any event, the claims are unpreserved (see People v Cabrera, 41 NY3d 35, 42-51 [2023]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.

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

ENTERED: January 6, 2026