People v. Zapata

205 A.D.3d 740, 165 N.Y.S.3d 737, 2022 NY Slip Op 03013
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 4, 2022
Docket2019-12663
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 A.D.3d 740 (People v. Zapata) 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. Zapata, 205 A.D.3d 740, 165 N.Y.S.3d 737, 2022 NY Slip Op 03013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Zapata (2022 NY Slip Op 03013)
People v Zapata
2022 NY Slip Op 03013
Decided on May 4, 2022
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 May 4, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
LARA J. GENOVESI
WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

2019-12663
2019-12664

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

v

Noe Zapata, appellant. (Ind. Nos. 851/18, 5975/18)


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Melissa Wachs of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sharen D. Hudson, J.), both rendered September 24, 2019, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 5975/18, and criminal possession of a firearm under Indictment No. 851/18, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant has completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree and, thus, his contention that this portion of the sentence was excessive has been rendered academic (see People v Stewart, 188 AD3d 932, 933; People v Worrell, 158 AD3d 828, 828; People v Stockinger, 131 AD3d 550, 551). The period of postrelease supervision imposed upon this conviction was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We decline to reach, in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, the defendant's unpreserved contention seeking vacatur of the surcharges and fees levied at sentencing (see People v Reeves, ___ AD3d ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 02137 [2d Dept]; People v Attah, ___ AD3d ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 02011 [2d Dept]).

CONNOLLY, J.P., MALTESE, GENOVESI and FORD, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Komynar
210 A.D.3d 698 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Calixte
174 N.Y.S.3d 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Robles (Khalil)
76 Misc. 3d 136(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
205 A.D.3d 740, 165 N.Y.S.3d 737, 2022 NY Slip Op 03013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zapata-nyappdiv-2022.