People v. Egelston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Egelston

171 A.D.2d 904, 567 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2617

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 904 (People v. Egelston) 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. Egelston, 171 A.D.2d 904, 567 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County (Dowd, J.), rendered March 12, 1990, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

The record establishes that one of the conditions of defendant’s probation was that he be required to make restitution and that, despite repeated attempts to collect as well as promises made by defendant that he would pay, he failed to make any payments whatsoever. Although defendant claimed at his violation of probation hearing that he was indigent, he did not offer any facts in support of that assertion. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion by County Court in revoking defendant’s probation and imposing a sentence of imprisonment (see, People v Krzykowski, 121 AD2d 831; People v Forman, 105 AD2d 984).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Crew III, and Harvey, 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 Chenango County (Dowd, J.), rendered March 12, 1990, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

The record establishes that one of the conditions of defendant’s probation was that he be required to make restitution and that, despite repeated attempts to collect as well as promises made by defendant that he would pay, he failed to make any payments whatsoever. Although defendant claimed at his violation of probation hearing that he was indigent, he did not offer any facts in support of that assertion. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion by County Court in revoking defendant’s probation and imposing a sentence of imprisonment (see, People v Krzykowski, 121 AD2d 831; People v Forman, 105 AD2d 984).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Crew III, and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 904, 567 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-egelston-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack