People v. Glickman

2018 NY Slip Op 1080
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 14, 2018
Docket2017-00612
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 1080 (People v. Glickman) 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. Glickman, 2018 NY Slip Op 1080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Glickman (2018 NY Slip Op 01080)
People v Glickman
2018 NY Slip Op 01080
Decided on February 14, 2018
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 14, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
SANDRA L. SGROI
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2017-00612
(Ind. No. 1392/06)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Steven Glickman, appellant.


Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti, LLP, White Plains, NY (Lisa Colosi Florio of counsel), for appellant.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the County Court, Putnam County (James F. Reitz, J.), imposed November 15, 2016, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rory J. Bellantoni, J.), upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of rape in the third degree.

ORDERED that the amended sentence is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal, given at the time of his plea of guilty, did not preclude review of his claim that the amended sentence imposed upon his violation of conditions of his probation was excessive (see People v Yodice, 153 AD3d 1373). Nevertheless, the amended sentence was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Yodice
2017 NY Slip Op 6562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 1080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-glickman-nyappdiv-2018.