People v. Browarnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Browarnik

42 A.D.2d 953, 348 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3343

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 953 (People v. Browarnik) 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. Browarnik, 42 A.D.2d 953, 348 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered September 16, 1970, after a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, and the order of said court entered on May 8, 1973, denying defendant’s motion for resentence, reversed, as a matter of discretion, and application remanded to ¡Supreme Court. Defendant was convicted of conspiracy in the second degree and attempted grand larceny in the first degree after a jury trial. No error in the trial is complained of and the evidence supported the conviction. At sentence proof was submitted that defendant was suffering from a heart condition and that incarceration would prove fatal. Several stays of execution were granted. On March 18, 1972, the People moved to compel defendant to surrender and defendant cross-moved to reduce his sentence to probation. Sentence was again deferred to May 8, 1973. On this date no hearing was held but the court denied defendant’s motion. A further stay was granted by this court. It is obvious from the above that despite defendant’s condition at the time of conviction he has survived for some three years. A hearing should be had on his present condition and, if necessary a further examination by a cardiologist, and in the light of what eventuates a ruling made on the applications. It is patent that unless incarceration would probably cause defendant’s death he should be made to serve the sentence. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Murphy and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered September 16, 1970, after a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, and the order of said court entered on May 8, 1973, denying defendant’s motion for resentence, reversed, as a matter of discretion, and application remanded to ¡Supreme Court. Defendant was convicted of conspiracy in the second degree and attempted grand larceny in the first degree after a jury trial. No error in the trial is complained of and the evidence supported the conviction. At sentence proof was submitted that defendant was suffering from a heart condition and that incarceration would prove fatal. Several stays of execution were granted. On March 18, 1972, the People moved to compel defendant to surrender and defendant cross-moved to reduce his sentence to probation. Sentence was again deferred to May 8, 1973. On this date no hearing was held but the court denied defendant’s motion. A further stay was granted by this court. It is obvious from the above that despite defendant’s condition at the time of conviction he has survived for some three years. A hearing should be had on his present condition and, if necessary a further examination by a cardiologist, and in the light of what eventuates a ruling made on the applications. It is patent that unless incarceration would probably cause defendant’s death he should be made to serve the sentence. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Murphy and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 953, 348 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-browarnik-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack