| People v Rossborough |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 03041 |
| Decided on April 27, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on April 27, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
577 KA 16-01119
v
JONATHAN C. ROSSBOROUGH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (CARA A. WALDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (ZACHARY S. MAURER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered June 1, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). Defendant correctly concedes that he failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in ordering him to pay a 10% surcharge in connection with the collection of restitution. Defendant did not object to the surcharge or otherwise raise the issue, despite having had an opportunity to do so (see People v Kosty, 122 AD3d 1408, 1409 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]; People v Kirkland, 105 AD3d 1337, 1338-1339 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]; cf. People v Goodenow, 149 AD3d 1560, 1560-1561 [4th Dept 2017]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v Camp, 134 AD3d 1470, 1471 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1066 [2016]; cf. People v Parker, 137 AD3d 1625, 1626-1627 [4th Dept 2016]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered: April 27, 2018
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court