A New York appellate court has upheld the conviction of Ryan L. Littler for assault in the second degree. The ruling, issued on October 2, 2026, confirms that Littler's sentence is not excessively harsh. This decision impacts Littler and others who may face similar legal challenges regarding the severity of their sentences.

The case, docketed as 597 KA 24-01585, originated in Oswego County, where Littler was convicted after pleading guilty to the charges against him. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures during sentencing and appeals.

Background

Ryan L. Littler was convicted of assault in the second degree, a serious offense under New York law. The case was brought to the appellate court after Littler appealed his conviction, questioning the severity of his sentence. The appeal was heard by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department.

The appeal stemmed from a judgment rendered by Oswego County Court, presided over by Judge Armen J. Nazarian on February 22, 2024. Littler's legal representation came from Keem Appeals, PLLC, with Bradley E. Keem serving as counsel. The prosecution was led by Oswego District Attorney Anthony J. DiMartino, Jr., with Amy L. Hallenbeck assisting in the case.

In his appeal, Littler argued that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid, which should allow the court to review the severity of his sentence. However, the court noted that even if this argument were accepted, it did not find the sentence to be unduly harsh or severe.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division ruled unanimously to affirm the judgment against Littler. The court stated, "we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe." This ruling indicates that the court found no significant error in the sentencing process that would warrant a change to Littler's punishment.

Additionally, the court addressed Littler's challenge regarding the restitution amount ordered at sentencing. It noted that Littler had failed to preserve this challenge for review because he did not object to the restitution amount during the sentencing process or request a hearing on the matter. The court referenced previous cases to support its decision, highlighting the importance of raising objections at the appropriate time.

Impact

The ruling has implications for Littler and others in similar situations. It reinforces the principle that defendants must be proactive in addressing issues related to their sentencing during the trial and sentencing phases. Failure to do so can limit their ability to challenge those aspects on appeal.

This decision may also serve as a precedent for future cases involving assault convictions and sentencing challenges in New York. It emphasizes the court's stance on maintaining the integrity of the sentencing process and the necessity for defendants to adhere to procedural requirements to preserve their rights for appeal.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential for further appeal. It is unclear if Littler or his legal team plans to pursue additional legal avenues following this ruling.