Crimes - Order of Protection - Duration

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (John Hecht, J.), rendered October 6, 2021, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

Ordered that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the order of protection as directed that it remain in effect until and including October 5, 2035, is vacated, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the order of protection consistent herewith; and it is further,

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

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree. A final order of protection was issued against the defendant, in favor of the complainant and a witness, which was to remain in effect until and including October 5, 2035.

The defendant's contention that the duration of the order of protection exceeds the statutory maximum is properly before this Court (see People v Beaubrun, 234 AD3d 869, 870 [2025]). As the People correctly concede, the duration of the order of protection exceeds the maximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.13 (4) (A). Accordingly, we vacate so much of the order of protection as directed that it remain in effect until and including October 5, 2035, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the order of protection in accordance with CPL 530.13 (4) (A) (see People v Lamontagne, 210 AD3d 797, 798 [2022]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions. Duffy, J.P., Ford, Golia and Quirk, JJ., concur.