By: Gonzalez, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.18-051. MARISOL CONTRERAS, plf-res, v. PARKASH 1530 LLC, def-app — Judgment (Brenda Rivera, J.), entered March 16, 2017, affirmed, without costs.The trial court’s resolution of the liability aspect of the within property damage claim in favor of plaintiff accords with the weight of the evidence presented at the small claims trial (see Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]), and is not disturbed. The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports a finding that defendant-landlord undertook responsibility to repair a leaking radiator in plaintiff’s apartment and failed to properly effectuate the repair work.The court’s damage award, based upon plaintiff’s testimony and exhibits as to the purchase price of the furniture, clothing and other household items damaged as a result of defendant’s negligence, comported with the governing substantial justice review standard (see CCA 1804, 1807; Kodak v. American Airlines, 9 Misc 3d 107, 110 [App Term, 2nd Dept 2005]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.October 15, 2018
18-069. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. RUBEN MARQUEZ-DELACRUZ, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Patsy Gouldborne, J.), rendered February 28, 2017, affirmed.Defendant’s challenges to his plea are unpreserved, and they do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]). We decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record as a whole establishes that the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, and there was nothing in the record to suggest that defendant’s ability to make a voluntary decision to plead guilty was impaired in any way by his use of alcohol or drugs (see People v. Rodriguez, 83 AD3d 449 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 800 [2011]; People v. Royster, 40 AD3d 885 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 881 [2007]). The plea court also specifically informed defendant of the precise terms of the conditional discharge, and defendant’s claim that the plea was invalid because he was not informed of its length is unavailing (see People v. Kidd, 105 AD3d 1267 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1005 [2013]; People v. Kripanidhi, 59 Misc 3d 148[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50789[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied __ NY3d __ [2018]).In any event, the only relief that defendant requests is dismissal of the information, rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d at 385 n 1; People v. Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.October 15, 2018
