Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Rebekah J. Pazmiño of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Michael Tadros of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Toni M. Cimino, J.), rendered January 5, 2023, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review two orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

Ordered that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the orders of protection as directed that they remain in effect until and including January 4, 2035, are vacated, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the duration of the orders of protection consistent herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that pending a new determination as to the duration of the orders of protection, the orders of protection shall remain in effect; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defendant did not object to the duration of the orders of protection on the ground that he was not credited for jail time served, he had no practical ability to register a timely objection on that basis, since the Supreme Court did not announce the duration of the orders of protection at either the plea or sentencing proceedings (see People v Delaurentis, 216 AD3d 664, 665 [2023]; People v Gonzalez, 207 AD3d 656, 657 [2022]). Thus, the rule of preservation does not apply (see People v Delaurentis, 216 AD3d at 665).

The duration of the orders of protection issued at sentencing exceeded the maximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.13 (4) since they did not take into account the defendant's jail-time credit (see People v Donegan, 232 AD3d 804, 806 [2024]; People v Vanhoven, 231 AD3d 752 [2024]). Thus, we vacate so much of the orders of protection as directed that they remain in effect until and including January 4, 2035, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the duration of the orders of protection (see People v Donegan, 232 AD3d at 806; People v Vanhoven, 231 AD3d 752 [2024]). Pending a new determination as to the duration of the orders of protection, the orders of protection shall remain in effect. Duffy, J.P., Wooten, Landicino and Mccormack, JJ., concur.