People v. Dubner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dubner

186 A.D.2d 580, 588 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11098

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 580 (People v. Dubner) 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. Dubner, 186 A.D.2d 580, 588 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), imposed July 20,1990.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which imposed upon the defendant the obligation to pay restitution in the amount of $2,000; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

As the People commendably concede, in light of the Court of Appeals holding in People v Rowe (75 NY2d 948), the Supreme Court was without authority at the time of sentencing herein to impose an order of restitution in the sum of $2,000 representing the so-called "buy” money expended by the police (see also, People v Montalvo, 178 AD2d 560; People v Titer, 176 AD2d 371). We note that after the sentence in this case was imposed, Penal Law § 60.27 was amended, effective November 1, 1991, to authorize restitution to law enforcement agencies to cover their expenditures of funds used in the purchase of drugs as part of investigations leading to convictions (L 1991, [581]*581ch 545). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), imposed July 20,1990.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which imposed upon the defendant the obligation to pay restitution in the amount of $2,000; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

As the People commendably concede, in light of the Court of Appeals holding in People v Rowe (75 NY2d 948), the Supreme Court was without authority at the time of sentencing herein to impose an order of restitution in the sum of $2,000 representing the so-called "buy” money expended by the police (see also, People v Montalvo, 178 AD2d 560; People v Titer, 176 AD2d 371). We note that after the sentence in this case was imposed, Penal Law § 60.27 was amended, effective November 1, 1991, to authorize restitution to law enforcement agencies to cover their expenditures of funds used in the purchase of drugs as part of investigations leading to convictions (L 1991, [581]*581ch 545). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 580, 588 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dubner-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack