Forman v. Potempa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forman v. Potempa

261 A.D.2d 671, 690 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4656

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 6, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 671 (Forman v. Potempa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forman v. Potempa, 261 A.D.2d 671, 690 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered April 14, 1998 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents which calculated the length of petitioner’s sentence.

Petitioner was convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree and in December 1977 he was sentenced to a prison term of SVs to 25 years. Following his release on parole supervision, petitioner pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted grand larceny in the third degree and was sentenced to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years in January 1996. Notwithstanding the sentencing court’s failure to address the issue in the order of commitment, the sentence imposed upon petitioner in 1996 is required to be served consecutively with his preexisting unexpired 1977 sentence (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]; Matter of White v Van Zandt, 236 AD2d 763; Matter of Santiago v Van Zandt, 236 AD2d 728, appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 1085). We accordingly reject petitioner’s contention that respondents improperly calculated his maximum sentence expiration date.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered April 14, 1998 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents which calculated the length of petitioner’s sentence.

Petitioner was convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree and in December 1977 he was sentenced to a prison term of SVs to 25 years. Following his release on parole supervision, petitioner pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted grand larceny in the third degree and was sentenced to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years in January 1996. Notwithstanding the sentencing court’s failure to address the issue in the order of commitment, the sentence imposed upon petitioner in 1996 is required to be served consecutively with his preexisting unexpired 1977 sentence (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]; Matter of White v Van Zandt, 236 AD2d 763; Matter of Santiago v Van Zandt, 236 AD2d 728, appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 1085). We accordingly reject petitioner’s contention that respondents improperly calculated his maximum sentence expiration date.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 671, 690 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forman-v-potempa-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack