Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/People v. Graham

People v. Graham

228 A.D.2d 520, 643 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6628
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 520 (People v. Graham) 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. Graham, 228 A.D.2d 520, 643 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

[521]*521As the People correctly concede, the imposition of a contingent sentence of incarceration to be served in addition to the maximum authorized period of incarceration is illegal (CPL 420.10 [4] [d]; People v Laurino, 205 AD2d 556). Therefore, the sentence imposed under Superior Court Information No. 87421 must be modified by vacating the additional, conditional term which would cause the total aggregate sentence to exceed the statutory maximum (People v Laurino, supra). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Miller, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Espola
238 A.D.2d 281 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.D.2d 520, 643 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-graham-nyappdiv-1996.