People v. Ali

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ali

233 A.D.2d 517, 650 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12698

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 517 (People v. Ali) 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. Ali, 233 A.D.2d 517, 650 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Mogil, J.), imposed August 11, 1994.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant failed to object to the procedure utilized by the court in determining the amount of restitution; therefore, his challenge on appeal is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281). In any event, since the defendant agreed at his plea allocution to the amount of restitution imposed by the court, the court did not err in imposing restitution without conducting a hearing (see, People v Jackson, 201 AD2d 504; see also, People v Lugo, 191 AD2d 648; People v Moore, 176 AD2d 968). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Mogil, J.), imposed August 11, 1994.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant failed to object to the procedure utilized by the court in determining the amount of restitution; therefore, his challenge on appeal is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281). In any event, since the defendant agreed at his plea allocution to the amount of restitution imposed by the court, the court did not err in imposing restitution without conducting a hearing (see, People v Jackson, 201 AD2d 504; see also, People v Lugo, 191 AD2d 648; People v Moore, 176 AD2d 968). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 517, 650 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ali-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack