The Third Department noted that County Court should not have imposed conditions upon defendant's postrelease supervision because only the Board of Parole has that power. The Third Department also noted that County Court should not have imposed a fine or restitution which were not mentioned during the plea proceedings, but the order of protection, which was discussed, should stand:
because only the Board of Parole is authorized to impose the conditions of a term of postrelease supervision (…Penal Law § 70.45 ; Executive Law §§ 259-c ; 259-i , ), County Court erred to the extent that it imposed certain conditions of defendant's postrelease supervision at sentencing and the conditions should be stricken. Similarly, inasmuch as neither a fine nor restitution was mentioned at the plea proceedings, the matter must be remitted to allow County Court to either impose the sentence that was negotiated or to give defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea before imposing the enhanced sentence … .
In contrast, while only an order of protection against the victim was discussed during the plea agreement, “[o]rders of protection are not punitive in nature and are not necessarily dependent on, or the result of, a plea agreement” … . Accordingly, County Court did not err when it imposed an order of protection in favor of the victim and her family at sentencing and, notwithstanding this Court's determination to remit this matter, the order of protection remains in place. People v Curry, 2014 NY Slip Op 09069, 3rd Dept 12-31-14