People v. Albert F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Albert F.

77 A.D.2d 885, 432 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12677

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

DecidedAugust 4, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.2d 885 (People v. Albert F.) 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

People v. Albert F., 77 A.D.2d 885, 432 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 8, 1978, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, denying youthful offender treatment, and imposing a sentence of one year of imprisonment. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of deeming the conviction vacated and granting the defendant youthful offender status. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Under the facts of this case, in view of the defendant’s age and that this was his first conflict with the law, it was improvident to deny defendant youthful offender treatment. In fact, the probation department recommended that the defendant be granted youthful offender treatment and that he not be incarcerated. (See People v Richard H., 65 AD2d 775; People v Andrews, 65 AD2d 688.) Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 8, 1978, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, denying youthful offender treatment, and imposing a sentence of one year of imprisonment. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of deeming the conviction vacated and granting the defendant youthful offender status. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Under the facts of this case, in view of the defendant’s age and that this was his first conflict with the law, it was improvident to deny defendant youthful offender treatment. In fact, the probation department recommended that the defendant be granted youthful offender treatment and that he not be incarcerated. (See People v Richard H., 65 AD2d 775; People v Andrews, 65 AD2d 688.) Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 885, 432 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-albert-f-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack