People v. Ambriati

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ambriati

239 A.D.2d 948, 659 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370

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

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 948 (People v. Ambriati) 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. Ambriati, 239 A.D.2d 948, 659 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly revoked the sentence of probation based upon defendant’s admitted failure to make restitution payments (see, People v Holmes, 226 AD2d 1122, lv denied 88 NY2d 966). There was no need for the court to conduct further inquiry into defendant’s ability to pay in view of the repeated assurances of defendant that he was able to make the required payments. Defendant’s challenges to the amount and terms of the restitution fixed by the court as a condition of the original sentence of probation are not properly before us on this appeal from the judgment revoking that sentence and resentencing defendant (see, People v Holmes, supra).

Defendant was resentenced to consecutive terms of incarceration of 2 to 6 years. In our view, the imposition of consecutive terms did not render the sentence unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.— Violation of Probation.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly revoked the sentence of probation based upon defendant’s admitted failure to make restitution payments (see, People v Holmes, 226 AD2d 1122, lv denied 88 NY2d 966). There was no need for the court to conduct further inquiry into defendant’s ability to pay in view of the repeated assurances of defendant that he was able to make the required payments. Defendant’s challenges to the amount and terms of the restitution fixed by the court as a condition of the original sentence of probation are not properly before us on this appeal from the judgment revoking that sentence and resentencing defendant (see, People v Holmes, supra).

Defendant was resentenced to consecutive terms of incarceration of 2 to 6 years. In our view, the imposition of consecutive terms did not render the sentence unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.— Violation of Probation.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 948, 659 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ambriati-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack