By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 11/6/2026
Category: Criminal Courts / Sentencing / Court Accountability
NEW YORK CITY, NY – A Brooklyn defendant’s conviction remains intact, but three orders of protection imposed at sentencing cannot remain in force as written after an appellate court found that their end dates exceeded New York’s statutory limit.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled Wednesday in People v. Harkless that the orders, which were set to run through Jan. 5, 2036, were longer than Criminal Procedure Law allows. The panel vacated only the duration provisions and sent the case back to Brooklyn Supreme Court to set lawful expiration dates.
The ruling leaves the orders themselves in effect while the trial court makes that new determination. It also leaves untouched Stuart Harkless’s conviction for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, entered after a guilty plea in January 2023.
That distinction matters. The appeals court did not erase protections for the people named in the orders and did not disturb the conviction. It corrected a sentencing term that the panel said crossed a statutory boundary.
New York law gives sentencing courts authority to issue orders of protection, but it also sets maximum durations tied to the level of the offense and the sentence imposed. Judges must fix those terms within the limits of Criminal Procedure Law section 530.13.
The appellate court said Harkless had no practical opportunity to object earlier because the trial judge did not announce the duration of the orders at the plea or sentencing proceedings. That meant the usual preservation rule did not block appellate review.
The panel also waived mandatory surcharges and fees imposed at sentencing, citing the prosecution’s consent and the court’s interest-of-justice authority. The decision does not specify the amount of those charges.
The case is a reminder that orders of protection can be essential safety tools while still requiring precise, lawful drafting. A date entered beyond the statutory maximum is not a harmless clerical detail. It can extend court restrictions for years beyond what the Legislature authorized.
Brooklyn Supreme Court must now calculate new expiration dates. Until it does, the orders remain active. The appellate ruling does not identify the protected parties, describe the underlying conduct, or state what dates the lower court should select.
Those unanswered points belong to the remand. What is settled is narrower and firm: sentencing courts may impose protection, but not beyond the limits written into state law.
Leave a Reply