People v. Gaffar
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law—scope of and statutory limits on criminal orders of protection (OP) issued at sentencing.
After accepting a guilty plea to kidnapping in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, the Supreme Court imposed sentence and issued an OP that protected multiple individuals, including Arthur Vasena, and set the OP to expire on July 8, 2044.
The portion of the OP issued in favor of Arthur Vasena and the OP’s expiration date.
The court lacked authority to issue an OP for Vasena because he was neither a victim nor a witness of the crimes of conviction under New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 530.13(4) [authorizes criminal orders of protection only for a victim or witness of the offense of conviction]. The OP’s duration exceeded the maximum allowed by CPL § 530.12(5) [sets maximum duration for final criminal orders of protection, varying by offense level]. Although the issues were unpreserved under CPL § 470.05(2) [preservation requirement for appellate review], the court exercised interest-of-justice review under CPL § 470.15(6)(a) [permits interest-of-justice review].
Background
Defendant Monier Gaffar pleaded guilty to kidnapping in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in Supreme Court, Kings County. At sentencing on July 9, 2021, the court issued an order of protection naming several protected persons, including Arthur Vasena, and set the order to expire on July 8, 2044. Gaffar appealed, challenging his sentence as excessive and the OP’s scope and duration.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court accepted the plea, imposed sentence, and issued an order of protection that included Arthur Vasena as a protected person and an expiration date of July 8, 2044.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division affirmed the sentence as not excessive. Exercising interest-of-justice jurisdiction, it vacated (1) the OP insofar as it was issued in favor of Arthur Vasena, because he was neither a victim nor a witness of the crimes of conviction (CPL § 530.13(4) [authorizes criminal orders of protection only for a victim or witness of the offense of conviction]), and (2) the portion of the OP setting the expiration date, because it exceeded the maximum allowed (CPL § 530.12(5) [sets maximum duration for final criminal orders of protection, varying by offense level]). The case was remitted for a new determination of the OP’s duration, and the remaining portions of the OP were left in effect pending that determination.
Legal Significance
Confirms that criminal orders of protection at sentencing must be limited to victims or witnesses of the offense of conviction and must comply with the statutory maximum duration. Even if challenges to the scope or duration are unpreserved (CPL § 470.05(2) [preservation requirement for appellate review]), the Appellate Division can correct such errors in the interest of justice (CPL § 470.15(6)(a) [permits interest-of-justice review]).
At sentencing, courts may issue orders of protection only for victims or witnesses of the crimes of conviction and must set durations within CPL limits; improper beneficiaries and overlong durations are subject to vacatur, and appellate courts may address these issues in the interest of justice.