People v. Cordingley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cordingley

59 A.D.2d 703, 398 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13655

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 703 (People v. Cordingley) 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. Cordingley, 59 A.D.2d 703, 398 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered March 2, 1977, convicting him of criminal solicitation in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a six-month term of imprisonment. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to a fine of $1,000 and a three-year period of probation. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5) and to fix the method of payment of the fine (see CPL 420.10) and the terms and conditions of probation. The sentence [704]*704imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered March 2, 1977, convicting him of criminal solicitation in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a six-month term of imprisonment. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to a fine of $1,000 and a three-year period of probation. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5) and to fix the method of payment of the fine (see CPL 420.10) and the terms and conditions of probation. The sentence [704]*704imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 703, 398 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cordingley-nyappdiv-1977.