People v. Di Vito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Di Vito

39 A.D.2d 968, 333 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4205

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

DecidedJune 26, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 968 (People v. Di Vito) 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. Di Vito, 39 A.D.2d 968, 333 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered September 3, 1971, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and case remanded to the County Court for resentencing of defendant in accordance with the views herein set forth. Defendant’s attorney informed the court at the time of sentence that defendant had been a drug addict, his criminal record was attributable to his addiction, he had been desirous of being cured and he had been accepted a few days prior thereto by Topic House, a facility for the treatment of drug addiction, as a person who might be benefited by such treatment. The presentence probation report confirms the latter statement. Although defendant’s incarceration for the past two years has probably removed his physical craving for narcotics, that factor does not necessarily indicate that he has become rehabilitated insofar as his addiction is concerned. Accordingly, in our opinion, before resentencing defendant, the court must comply with the provisions of sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law (cf. People v. Batson, 39 A D 2d 586; People v. Maranez, 39 A D 2d 646; People v. Sczerbaty, 37 A D 2d 428). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Brennan and Benjamin, 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 County Court, Nassau County, rendered September 3, 1971, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and case remanded to the County Court for resentencing of defendant in accordance with the views herein set forth. Defendant’s attorney informed the court at the time of sentence that defendant had been a drug addict, his criminal record was attributable to his addiction, he had been desirous of being cured and he had been accepted a few days prior thereto by Topic House, a facility for the treatment of drug addiction, as a person who might be benefited by such treatment. The presentence probation report confirms the latter statement. Although defendant’s incarceration for the past two years has probably removed his physical craving for narcotics, that factor does not necessarily indicate that he has become rehabilitated insofar as his addiction is concerned. Accordingly, in our opinion, before resentencing defendant, the court must comply with the provisions of sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law (cf. People v. Batson, 39 A D 2d 586; People v. Maranez, 39 A D 2d 646; People v. Sczerbaty, 37 A D 2d 428). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 968, 333 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-di-vito-nyappdiv-1972.