People v. Vergara

2026 NY Slip Op 00802

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: Ind. No. 70579/22
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Vergara (2026 NY Slip Op 00802)

People v Vergara

2026 NY Slip Op 00802

Decided on February 11, 2026

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 February 11, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
LARA J. GENOVESI, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
JANICE A. TAYLOR
DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.

2023-06268
(Ind. No. 70579/22)

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

v

Eric F. Vergara, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Samantha Jerabek of counsel), for appellant.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Thomas B. Litsky and Nicole Kaye of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lisa Grey, J.), rendered May 23, 2023, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

ORDERED that upon the appeal from the judgment, the order of protection is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof directing that it shall remain in effect until and including May 22, 2041, and substituting therefor a provision directing that it shall remain in effect until and including June 22, 2040; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). 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 Sayles, 242 AD3d 1126, 1126; People v Alijaj, 217 AD3d 881, 882).

As the People correctly concede, the duration of the order of protection exceeded the maximum period permissible under CPL 530.13(4)(A)(ii). The defendant requests, and the People concede, that the order of protection should be modified accordingly. Therefore, we modify the order of protection by providing that it shall remain in effect until and including June 22, 2040 (see People v Jackson, 242 AD3d 903, 903; People v Williams, 235 AD3d 1017, 1017).

GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, TAYLOR and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court