People v. Benoit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Benoit

251 A.D.2d 676, 675 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7859

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

DecidedJune 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 676 (People v. Benoit) 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. Benoit, 251 A.D.2d 676, 675 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from three amended judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), all rendered September 25, 1996, revoking three sentences of probation previously imposed by the same court upon findings that he had violated conditions thereof, upon a hearing, and imposing three sentences of indeterminate terms of IV2 to 4 years imprisonment, to run consecutively to each other, upon his previous convictions of attempted burglary in the second degree (three counts, one as to each indictment).

Ordered that the amended judgments are modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by making all of the sentences concurrent; as so modified, the amended judgments are affirmed.

As conceded by the People, the sentences imposed were excessive and therefore are reduced to the extent indicated. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, 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 from three amended judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), all rendered September 25, 1996, revoking three sentences of probation previously imposed by the same court upon findings that he had violated conditions thereof, upon a hearing, and imposing three sentences of indeterminate terms of IV2 to 4 years imprisonment, to run consecutively to each other, upon his previous convictions of attempted burglary in the second degree (three counts, one as to each indictment).

Ordered that the amended judgments are modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by making all of the sentences concurrent; as so modified, the amended judgments are affirmed.

As conceded by the People, the sentences imposed were excessive and therefore are reduced to the extent indicated. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 676, 675 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-benoit-nyappdiv-1998.