People v. Arfman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arfman

167 A.D.2d 344, 562 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13366

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 344 (People v. Arfman) 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. Arfman, 167 A.D.2d 344, 562 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated October 6, 1988, convicting him of absconding in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 60.35 and CPL 420.35, which provide for the imposition or waiver, in the court’s discretion, of the $100 mandatory surcharge (see, People v Barnes, 62 NY2d 702). Moreover, should the defendant find himself unable to pay the surcharge at the conclusion of his imprisonment, he may then move for a waiver thereof (see, CPL 420.35, 420.10 [5]; People v West, 124 Misc 2d 622; People v Williams, 131 AD2d 525). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated October 6, 1988, convicting him of absconding in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 60.35 and CPL 420.35, which provide for the imposition or waiver, in the court’s discretion, of the $100 mandatory surcharge (see, People v Barnes, 62 NY2d 702). Moreover, should the defendant find himself unable to pay the surcharge at the conclusion of his imprisonment, he may then move for a waiver thereof (see, CPL 420.35, 420.10 [5]; People v West, 124 Misc 2d 622; People v Williams, 131 AD2d 525). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 344, 562 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arfman-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack