Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026

People v. Hough

People v. Hough
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 02999
People v. Hough

Opinion

People v Hough - 2026 NY Slip Op 02999
skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau
Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

People v Hough

2026 NY Slip Op 02999

May 13, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Dwayne Hough, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on May 13, 2026

2024-04805, (Ind. No. 72272/22)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Betsy Barros

Barry E. Warhit

Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.

Steven A. Feldman, Manhasset, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Francine R. Michel of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgement of the County Court, Nassau County (Terence P. Murphy, J.), rendered May 15, 2024, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and assault in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the provision thereof directing payment of the mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee, and DNA databank fee by civil judgment, and substituting therefor a provision directing payment of the mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee, and DNA databank fee pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35(5); as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the period of postrelease supervision imposed as part of his sentence was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

However, the County Court, at sentencing, should not have directed payment of the mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee, and DNA databank fee by civil judgment (see Penal Law § 60.35[5]; People v Jones, 26 NY3d 730, 732; People v Grant, 185 AD3d 608, 610). Although this issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (cf. People v Clemmons, 171 AD3d 1207).

DUFFY, J.P., BARROS, WARHIT and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Court Decisions

All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search

Resources

RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting & Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index

About

About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter

Quick Contact Info

17 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: (518) 453-6900

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.