People v. Sider
This text of People v. Sider (People v. Sider) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Sider
2026 NY Slip Op 02136
April 8, 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
Gene Sider, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 8, 2026
2024-00358, (Ind. No. 70887/23)
Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson
Paul Wooten
Janice A. Taylor, JJ.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sam Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Christopher J. Blira-Koessler of counsel; Michael C. Goga on the brief), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gia Lynne Morris, J.), rendered January 3, 2024, convicting him of burglary in the third 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 the defendant knowingly, willingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 254; People v Bolus, 229 AD3d 465). 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 255-256; People v Pitt, 227 AD3d 1112, 1114).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly issued orders of protection in favor of two individuals is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-318; People v D.A., 184 AD3d 581, 583), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v D.A., 184 AD3d at 583).
IANNACCI, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WOOTEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court