People v. Fortuna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fortuna

83 A.D.2d 947, 443 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15394

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 947 (People v. Fortuna) 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. Fortuna, 83 A.D.2d 947, 443 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Booth, J.), imposed March 29,1981 upon the granting of the People’s motion to vacate a sentence of probation, the resentence being an intermittent prison term. Resentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed to concurrent periods of probation of five years on the convictions of bribe receiving and receiving a reward for official misconduct and of three years on the convictions of conspiracy in the third degree and official misconduct, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to fix the conditions of probation and for further proceedings so that execution of the judgment may be commenced or resumed. Under the circumstances, a sentence of probation is appropriate. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Rabin and Cohalan, 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 resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Booth, J.), imposed March 29,1981 upon the granting of the People’s motion to vacate a sentence of probation, the resentence being an intermittent prison term. Resentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed to concurrent periods of probation of five years on the convictions of bribe receiving and receiving a reward for official misconduct and of three years on the convictions of conspiracy in the third degree and official misconduct, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to fix the conditions of probation and for further proceedings so that execution of the judgment may be commenced or resumed. Under the circumstances, a sentence of probation is appropriate. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Rabin and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 947, 443 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fortuna-nyappdiv-1981.