People v. Antonetty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Antonetty

45 A.D.3d 397, 845 N.Y.S.2d 309

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 397 (People v. Antonetty) 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. Antonetty, 45 A.D.3d 397, 845 N.Y.S.2d 309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion to be resentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004, unanimously affirmed.

Section 23 of the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) provides, in pertinent part, that the court should grant a resentencing application “unless substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied.” The court properly recognized the degree of discretion it possessed (compare People v Arana, 32 AD3d 305 [2006]) and providently exercised that discretion in denying resentencing based on the serious nature of defendant’s subject crime, past crimes and misconduct while incarcerated (see People v Vasquez, 41 AD3d 111 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 870 [2007]). The court based its determination on reliable information concerning defendant’s background. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion to be resentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004, unanimously affirmed.

Section 23 of the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) provides, in pertinent part, that the court should grant a resentencing application “unless substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied.” The court properly recognized the degree of discretion it possessed (compare People v Arana, 32 AD3d 305 [2006]) and providently exercised that discretion in denying resentencing based on the serious nature of defendant’s subject crime, past crimes and misconduct while incarcerated (see People v Vasquez, 41 AD3d 111 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 870 [2007]). The court based its determination on reliable information concerning defendant’s background. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 397, 845 N.Y.S.2d 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-antonetty-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack