| People v Gill (Gary) |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 51160(U) [83 Misc 3d 131(A)] |
| Decided on July 26, 2024 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appellate Advocates (Yaniv Kot of counsel), for appellant. Queens County District Attorney (Johnnette Traill and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by defendant, as limited by the brief, from a sentence of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jeffrey A. Gershuny, J.), imposed June 13, 2022, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, upon a plea of guilty.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Following negotiations, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (Penal Law § 170.20), a class A misdemeanor, in satisfaction of all of the numerous charges on the docket, and was sentenced to a $500 fine. On appeal, defendant contends that his sentence of a $500 fine was excessive and should be vacated, and that he should be re-sentenced to a conditional discharge because (1) he is indigent and qualified for assigned counsel in the Criminal Court and on appeal, and (2) he obtained no monetary gain from his conduct, and there was no financial loss due to his conduct. In the alternative, defendant requested that the fine be reduced.
The record indicates that defendant was employed at the time of his negotiated plea and [*2]sentence, and agreed to the imposition of a $500 fine rather than community service. Defendant also did not seek relief from the fine by way of a CPL 420.10 (5) motion for re-sentencing (see People v Toledo, 101 AD3d 571 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 947 [2013]; People v Acevedo, 243 AD2d 572 [1997]; People v Mercado, 81 Misc 3d 143[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50163[U] [App Term, 1st Dept, 2024]). Moreover, defendant has shown no extraordinary circumstances that warrant a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302 [1982]; People v Vega, 73 AD3d 1218 [2010]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). As defendant has been sentenced according to the terms of a bargained-for plea and sentencing agreement, he "has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive" (People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]; see People v Galvez, 72 AD3d 838 [2010]; People v Ubiles, 59 AD3d 572 [2009]).
Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.
BUGGS, J.P., MUNDY and HOM, JJ., concur.
ENTER: