People v. Thomas

2025 NY Slip Op 07198
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 23, 2025
Docket974 KA 24-00903
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 07198 (People v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 2025 NY Slip Op 07198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

People v Thomas (2025 NY Slip Op 07198)
People v Thomas
2025 NY Slip Op 07198
Decided on December 23, 2025
Appellate Division, Fourth 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 23, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, OGDEN, NOWAK, AND DELCONTE, JJ.

974 KA 24-00903

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

DREQUAN A. THOMAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


BANASIAK LAW OFFICE, PLLC, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BRITTANY GROME ANTONACCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered May 30, 2024. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by amending the order of protection and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Cayuga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]). Defendant contends, and the People correctly concede, that County Court erred in setting the expiration date of the order of protection. Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-316 [2004]; People v Coleman, 145 AD3d 1641, 1642 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 947 [2017]), we exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; People v Lopez, 151 AD3d 1649, 1650 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1129 [2017]; People v Richardson, 134 AD3d 1566, 1567 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1074 [2016]). We modify the judgment by amending the order of protection, and we remit the matter to County Court to determine, and to specify in the order of protection, an expiration date that is in accordance with CPL 530.12 (5) (A).

Entered: December 23, 2025

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Nieves
811 N.E.2d 13 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
People v. Lopez
2017 NY Slip Op 4616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 07198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thomas-nyappdiv-2025.