People v. Corby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Corby

167 A.D.2d 682, 563 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13614

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 682 (People v. Corby) 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. Corby, 167 A.D.2d 682, 563 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered November 13, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

[683]*683Although not claiming that the actual amount of his restitution was in error, defendant now argues that a reduction is nevertheless warranted due to his present economic situation. At the time of sentencing, defendant informed County Court that he wanted and intended to pay full restitution. In addition, defendant specifically acknowledged at his plea that, if given probation, he would pay the agreed-upon amount of restitution. Having received the sentence for which he bargained, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in fixing the amount of restitution (see, People v Palella, 148 AD2d 838, 839, lv denied, 74 NY2d 795).

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered November 13, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

[683]*683Although not claiming that the actual amount of his restitution was in error, defendant now argues that a reduction is nevertheless warranted due to his present economic situation. At the time of sentencing, defendant informed County Court that he wanted and intended to pay full restitution. In addition, defendant specifically acknowledged at his plea that, if given probation, he would pay the agreed-upon amount of restitution. Having received the sentence for which he bargained, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in fixing the amount of restitution (see, People v Palella, 148 AD2d 838, 839, lv denied, 74 NY2d 795).

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 682, 563 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-corby-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack