People v. Cutola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cutola

94 A.D.2d 726, 462 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18172

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

DecidedMay 9, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.2d 726 (People v. Cutola) 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. Cutola, 94 A.D.2d 726, 462 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sharpe, J.), imposed March 5,1981, upon his conviction of the unauthorized use of a vehicle as a misdemeanor, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a definite prison term of one year. Sentence modified, as matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to a period of probation of three years. As so modified, sentence affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to fix the terms and conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Thompson, J. P., Gulotta, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sharpe, J.), imposed March 5,1981, upon his conviction of the unauthorized use of a vehicle as a misdemeanor, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a definite prison term of one year. Sentence modified, as matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to a period of probation of three years. As so modified, sentence affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to fix the terms and conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Thompson, J. P., Gulotta, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 726, 462 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cutola-nyappdiv-1983.