conducted hearing in New York

2012We conclude that the tainted proceeding had an adverse impact on defendant, warranting reversal of the resentence and remittal of this matter for the court to ascertain that defendant has been afforded the right to counsel and for resentencing (cf. People v Johnson, 94 AD3d 1496, 1497 [2012]; see generally People v Wardlaw, 6 NY3d 556, 559 [2006]).

2012We conclude that the tainted proceeding had an adverse impact on defendant, warranting reversal of the resentence and remittal of this matter for the court to ascertain that defendant has been afforded the right to counsel and for resentencing (cf. People v Johnson, 94 AD3d 1496, 1497 [2012]; see generally People v Wardlaw, 6 NY3d 556, 559 [2006]).

2014After defendant challenged the validity of his new arrest, the court conducted a hearing pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702 [1993]), and the court’s findings and determination comported with the standards articulated in Outley (see id. at 712-713).

2014After defendant challenged the validity of his new arrest, the court conducted a hearing pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702 [1993]), and the court’s findings and determination comported with the standards articulated in Outley (see id. at 712-713).

2023Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that there was no unfairness to him inasmuch as the prosecutor asked for a ruling out of the presence of the jury and the court conducted a hearing with respect to the admissibility of such evidence before the eyewitness testified to the prior bad act or uncharged crime, during which the prosecutor detailed the testimony to be elicited as an offer of proof, defense counsel made arguments in opposition to the admissibility of the testimony, and the court ruled that the testimony was admissible on the ground that its probative value outw

2023Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that there was no unfairness to him inasmuch as the prosecutor asked for a ruling out of the presence of the jury and the court conducted a hearing with respect to the admissibility of such evidence before the eyewitness testified to the prior bad act or uncharged crime, during which the prosecutor detailed the testimony to be elicited as an offer of proof, defense counsel made arguments in opposition to the admissibility of the testimony, and the court ruled that the testimony was admissible on the ground that its probative value outw

2017The exception to the requirement to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 “carries significant consequences” (People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427, 431 [2006]), and the Court of Appeals has “consistently held that police identifications do not enjoy any exemption from the statutory notice and hearing requirements” (id. at 433).

2017The exception to the requirement to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 “carries significant consequences” (People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427, 431 [2006]), and the Court of Appeals has “consistently held that police identifications do not enjoy any exemption from the statutory notice and hearing requirements” (id. at 433).

2017Specifically, defense counsel relied on People v Campbell ( 98 AD3d 5, 12-13 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 853 [2012]), and argued that the Family Court Act prohibited consideration of a juvenile delinquency adjudication in a SORA determination.

2017Specifically, defense counsel relied on People v Campbell ( 98 AD3d 5, 12-13 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 853 [2012]), and argued that the Family Court Act prohibited consideration of a juvenile delinquency adjudication in a SORA determination.

2016Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not illegal, and the valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses the contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]).

2016Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not illegal, and the valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses the contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]).

2016This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement articulated in Lopez (see id. at 666; People v Brinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]), but we in any event note that, although not required to do so, the court conducted an inquiry into the validity of the plea based on the statements made by defendant during his presentence interview and at sentencing (see generally People v Garcia-Cruz, 138 AD3d 1414, 1415 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016]).

2016This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement articulated in Lopez (see id. at 666; People v Brinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]), but we in any event note that, although not required to do so, the court conducted an inquiry into the validity of the plea based on the statements made by defendant during his presentence interview and at sentencing (see generally People v Garcia-Cruz, 138 AD3d 1414, 1415 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016]).

2016This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement articulated in Lopez (see id. at 666; People v Brinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]), but we in any event note that, although not required to do so, the court conducted an inquiry into the validity of the plea based on the statements made by defendant during his presentence interview and at sentencing (see generally People v Garcia-Cruz, 138 AD3d 1414, 1415 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016]).

2016This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement articulated in Lopez (see id. at 666; People v Brinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]), but we in any event note that, although not required to do so, the court conducted an inquiry into the validity of the plea based on the statements made by defendant during his presentence interview and at sentencing (see generally People v Garcia-Cruz, 138 AD3d 1414, 1415 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016]).

2016This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement articulated in Lopez (see id. at 666; People v Brinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]), but we in any event note that, although not required to do so, the court conducted an inquiry into the validity of the plea based on the statements made by defendant during his presentence interview and at sentencing (see generally People v Garcia-Cruz, 138 AD3d 1414, 1415 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016]).

2016This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement articulated in Lopez (see id. at 666; People v Brinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]), but we in any event note that, although not required to do so, the court conducted an inquiry into the validity of the plea based on the statements made by defendant during his presentence interview and at sentencing (see generally People v Garcia-Cruz, 138 AD3d 1414, 1415 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016]).

2015Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

2015Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

2015Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

2015Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

2013Respondent had no right to be present while the court conducted an inquiry of juror No. 7 to determine whether that juror should be discharged pursuant to CPL 270.35 (see People v Luchey, 221 AD2d 936, 936 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 1021 , reconsideration denied 88 NY2d 988 [1996]).

2013Respondent had no right to be present while the court conducted an inquiry of juror No. 7 to determine whether that juror should be discharged pursuant to CPL 270.35 (see People v Luchey, 221 AD2d 936, 936 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 1021 , reconsideration denied 88 NY2d 988 [1996]).

2012We conclude that the tainted proceeding had an adverse impact on defendant, warranting reversal of the resentence and remittal of this matter for the court to ascertain that defendant has been afforded the right to counsel and for resentencing (cf. People v Johnson, 94 AD3d 1496, 1497 [2012]; see generally People v Wardlaw, 6 NY3d 556, 559 [2006]).

2012We conclude that the tainted proceeding had an adverse impact on defendant, warranting reversal of the resentence and remittal of this matter for the court to ascertain that defendant has been afforded the right to counsel and for resentencing (cf. People v Johnson, 94 AD3d 1496, 1497 [2012]; see generally People v Wardlaw, 6 NY3d 556, 559 [2006]).

2012The court conducted no such inquiry in this case, and “[t]he sentencing court erred by permitting defendant to represent himself at his ultimate sentencing proceeding” (People v Adams, 52 AD3d 243, 243 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 829 [2008]).

2012The court conducted no such inquiry in this case, and “[t]he sentencing court erred by permitting defendant to represent himself at his ultimate sentencing proceeding” (People v Adams, 52 AD3d 243, 243 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 829 [2008]).

2023Defendant failed to preserve for our review his related contention that the court erred in failing to provide an immediate limiting instruction with respect to the foregoing Molineux evidence ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hildreth , 199 AD3d 1366, 1368 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1161 [2022]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; Hildreth , 199 AD3d at 1368 ).

2023Defendant failed to preserve for our review his related contention that the court erred in failing to provide an immediate limiting instruction with respect to the foregoing Molineux evidence ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hildreth , 199 AD3d 1366, 1368 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1161 [2022]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; Hildreth , 199 AD3d at 1368 ).

2023Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that there was no unfairness to him inasmuch as the prosecutor asked for a ruling out of the presence of the jury and the court conducted a hearing with respect to the admissibility of such evidence before the eyewitness testified to the prior bad act or uncharged crime, during which the prosecutor detailed the testimony to be elicited as an offer of proof, defense counsel made arguments in opposition to the admissibility of the testimony, and the court ruled that the testimony was admissible on the ground that its probative value outw

2023Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that there was no unfairness to him inasmuch as the prosecutor asked for a ruling out of the presence of the jury and the court conducted a hearing with respect to the admissibility of such evidence before the eyewitness testified to the prior bad act or uncharged crime, during which the prosecutor detailed the testimony to be elicited as an offer of proof, defense counsel made arguments in opposition to the admissibility of the testimony, and the court ruled that the testimony was admissible on the ground that its probative value outw