People v. Canty

167 N.Y.S.3d 799, 2022 NY Slip Op 03738
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 8, 2022
DocketInd. No. 1044/16
StatusPublished

This text of 167 N.Y.S.3d 799 (People v. Canty) 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. Canty, 167 N.Y.S.3d 799, 2022 NY Slip Op 03738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Canty (2022 NY Slip Op 03738)
People v Canty
2022 NY Slip Op 03738
Decided on June 8, 2022
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 8, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
ROBERT J. MILLER
WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

2018-03757
(Ind. No. 1044/16)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Freddrick Canty, appellant.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY, for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Ellen C. Abbot of counsel; Jordan Miller on the memorandum), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephanie Zaro, J.), imposed February 13, 2018, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a sentence greater than what had been promised based upon the defendant's violation of a condition of his plea agreement that he return to court for sentencing (see People v Scarlett, 176 AD3d 1111, 1112; People v Pereyra, 169 AD3d 719, 719; People v Smith, 160 AD3d 664, 665). "Even though the court had a right to enhance the sentence, [this Court has] broad, plenary power to modify an enhanced sentence that is harsh or excessive under the circumstances" (People v Diaz, 146 AD3d 803, 805). The enhanced sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

CONNOLLY, J.P., RIVERA, MILLER and FORD, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Diaz
2017 NY Slip Op 183 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
167 N.Y.S.3d 799, 2022 NY Slip Op 03738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-canty-nyappdiv-2022.