defendant preserved challenge in New York

2026Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant preserved his challenge to the imposition of the enhanced sentence, since defense counsel "'made his position with respect to the ruling . . . known to the court'" ( People v Martinez , 202 AD3d 828, 832 , quoting CPL 470.05[2]). "'Conditions imposed as part of a plea arrangement are valid if the parties agree to them and they do not violate any statute or contravene public policy'" ( People v Volpe , 226 AD3d 708 , 709, quoting People v Takie , 172 AD3d 1249 , 1250).

2024Moreover, the defendant preserved his challenge to the imposition of the enhanced sentence, since "defense counsel . . . 'made his position with respect to the ruling . . . known to the court'" ( People v Martinez , 202 AD3d 828, 832 , quoting CPL 470.05[2]; see People v Jones , 164 AD3d 1363 , 1364; People v Zeldine , 121 AD3d 928, 929 ).

2026"Furthermore, '[i]t is well established that the violation of an explicit and objective plea condition that was accepted by the defendant can result in the imposition of an enhanced sentence'" ( People v Martinez , 202 AD3d at 832 , quoting People v Becker , 80 AD3d 795, 796 ). "[F]ailure to appear on a scheduled sentencing date in violation of a plea agreement may constitute a basis to impose an enhanced sentence" ( People v Smith , 160 AD3d 664 , 665).

2024Moreover, the defendant preserved his challenge to the imposition of the enhanced sentence, since "defense counsel . . . 'made his position with respect to the ruling . . . known to the court'" ( People v Martinez , 202 AD3d 828, 832 , quoting CPL 470.05[2]; see People v Jones , 164 AD3d 1363 , 1364; People v Zeldine , 121 AD3d 928, 929 ).

2022In People v Brown ( 79 AD3d 1142 ), this Court determined that a defendant preserved his challenge to summation remarks for appellate review where those remarks "were generally objected to during summation and specifically objected to in postsummation motions" ( id. at 1142 ).

2022In People v Brown ( 79 AD3d 1142 ), this Court determined that a defendant preserved his challenge to summation remarks for appellate review where those remarks "were generally objected to during summation and specifically objected to in postsummation motions" ( id. at 1142 ).

2020There was no evidence presented that the officer who stopped the defendant and frisked him had knowledge of some fact or circumstance that supported a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed or posed a threat to the officer's safety ( see People v Shuler , 98 AD3d 695 ).

2020However, before we may consider -1- -2- No. 21 whether a trial court fulfilled that obligation, we must determine whether a defendant preserved the claim as a matter of law for our review or whether an exception to the preservation doctrine applies (see id. at 182 ; see also NY Const Art VI, § 3 [a]; CPL 470.05[2]).

2020Here, service on defendant, in open court and months before the plea proceedings, of a “Notice of Immigration Consequences” form provided him with a reasonable opportunity to object to the plea court’s failure to advise him of the potential deportation consequences of his plea, making the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine unavailable to him (see Peque, 22 NY3d at 182-183 ; see also People v Williams, 27 NY3d 212, 214 [2016]).

2019Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 ).

2015Thus, a review of the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the defendant’s statements were voluntarily made (see People v Wilkinson, 120 AD3d at 521 ; People v Winkfield, 90 AD3d 959, 960 [2011]; People v Seabrooks, 82 AD3d 1130, 1130-1131 [2011]; People v Saunders, 71 AD3d at 1059-1060 ). *749 The defendant preserved his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and resisting arrest, but failed to preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the assault

2015Thus, a review of the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the defendant’s statements were voluntarily made (see People v Wilkinson, 120 AD3d at 521 ; People v Winkfield, 90 AD3d 959, 960 [2011]; People v Seabrooks, 82 AD3d 1130, 1130-1131 [2011]; People v Saunders, 71 AD3d at 1059-1060 ). *749 The defendant preserved his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and resisting arrest, but failed to preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the assault

2006It is well settled that a failure to file a predicate felony statement prior to sentencing renders the sentence invalid as a matter of law and requires resentencing (People v Camble, 17 AD3d 235 [1st Dept 2005]; People v De Fayette, 16 AD3d 708 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Pierre, 8 AD3d 904 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 710 [2004]).

2006It is well settled that a failure to file a predicate felony statement prior to sentencing renders the sentence invalid as a matter of law and requires resentencing (People v Camble, 17 AD3d 235 [1st Dept 2005]; People v De Fayette, 16 AD3d 708 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Pierre, 8 AD3d 904 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 710 [2004]).

2006It is well settled that a failure to file a predicate felony statement prior to sentencing renders the sentence invalid as a matter of law and requires resentencing (People v Camble, 17 AD3d 235 [1st Dept 2005]; People v De Fayette, 16 AD3d 708 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Pierre, 8 AD3d 904 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 710 [2004]).

2006It is well settled that a failure to file a predicate felony statement prior to sentencing renders the sentence invalid as a matter of law and requires resentencing (People v Camble, 17 AD3d 235 [1st Dept 2005]; People v De Fayette, 16 AD3d 708 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Pierre, 8 AD3d 904 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 710 [2004]).

1993To the extent that the defendant preserved his claim relating to admissibility of background evidence concerning police procedures, we find that the evidence in this case was properly admitted to aid the jury in understanding the officers’ conduct and was probative of their credibility (People v Almodovar, 178 AD2d 133 , lv denied 79 NY2d 943 ).