People v. SirabellaPeople v. Sirabella
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The defendant’s contention that the mandatory surcharge imposed at sentencing should be waived is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ruz, 70 NY2d 942 [1988]; People v Norelius, 140 AD3d 799 [2016]) and, in any event, without merit (see
Although the defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly imposed an enhanced sentence is unpreserved for appellate review, we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Gregory, 140 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2016]; People v Carrasquillo, 133 AD3d 774, 775 [2015]). The court improperly enhanced the defendant’s sentence by
Here, since the defendant was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment, but instead, a period of conditional discharge, the County Court was required to impose a fine in the range of $500 to $1,000 in order for the sentence to comply with