People v. Cardascia

2018 NY Slip Op 1932
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 2018
Docket2016-06537
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 1932 (People v. Cardascia) 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. Cardascia, 2018 NY Slip Op 1932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Cardascia (2018 NY Slip Op 01932)
People v Cardascia
2018 NY Slip Op 01932
Decided on March 21, 2018
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 March 21, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
MARK C. DILLON
ROBERT J. MILLER
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2016-06537
(Ind. No. 121/14)

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

v

Dominic R. Cardascia, appellant.


Thomas N. N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Steven Levine of counsel), for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), imposed May 25, 2016, sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2⅓ to 7 years upon his conviction of forgery in the second degree, and 1⅓ to 4 years upon his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the two indeterminate terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

The sentence, although legally permissible, is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, MILLER, HINDS-RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

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)
2018 NY Slip Op 1932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cardascia-nyappdiv-2018.