People v. Castellano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Castellano

6 A.D.3d 278, 774 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4626

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

DecidedApril 20, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 278 (People v. Castellano) 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. Castellano, 6 A.D.3d 278, 774 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered October 11, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and two counts of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, and sentencing him to three concurrent terms of one year and fines of $1,000, $500 and $500 on the respective convictions, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the fine of $1,000, and otherwise affirmed.

We find defendant’s sentence to be excessive to the extent indicated. We are persuaded principally by the fact that the sentencing court was reluctant to impose a fine on the conviction of operating under the influence of alcohol, but was under the misimpression that such fine was mandatory. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered October 11, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and two counts of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, and sentencing him to three concurrent terms of one year and fines of $1,000, $500 and $500 on the respective convictions, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the fine of $1,000, and otherwise affirmed.

We find defendant’s sentence to be excessive to the extent indicated. We are persuaded principally by the fact that the sentencing court was reluctant to impose a fine on the conviction of operating under the influence of alcohol, but was under the misimpression that such fine was mandatory. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 278, 774 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-castellano-nyappdiv-2004.