| People v Lubrano (Thomas) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 51133(U) [31 Misc 3d 152(A)] |
| Decided on June 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Consolidated appeal from a judgment and an amended judgment of the District Court of
Suffolk County, Sixth District (Stephen L. Ukeiley, J.), rendered March 30, 2009 and September
14, 2009, respectively. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of violating
Brookhaven Town Code § 82-3 (E) and sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and to a
"conditional discharge to fix the items that are in disrepair" by May 14, 2009. The amended
judgment, after a nonjury trial, upon a finding that defendant had violated his conditional
discharge, sentenced him to pay an additional $600 fine and to an additional conditional
discharge to repair the premises by October 14, 2009.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction and the amended judgment of conviction are affirmed.
After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of violating section 82-3 (E) (neighborhood preservation requirements) of the Brookhaven Town Code and was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and to a "conditional discharge to fix the items that are in disrepair" by May 14, 2009. After a further nonjury trial, upon a finding that defendant had violated his conditional discharge, defendant was sentenced to pay an additional $600 fine and to an additional conditional discharge to repair the premises by October 14, 2009.
Defendant contends on appeal that he was the victim of selective enforcement of the law because his neighbor was also violating the Brookhaven Town Code but was not prosecuted. To properly preserve for review the affirmative defense of selective enforcement of the law, a defendant must present it in a pretrial motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument (People v Carter, 86 AD2d 451, 453 [1982]). As defendant raised this issue for the first time on appeal, he did not properly preserve it, and we decline to review this contention in the interest of justice.
We find defendant's other contentions raised on appeal to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the amended judgment of conviction are affirmed.
Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ. concur.
Decision Date: June 17, 2011