People v. Greenlee
This text of People v. Greenlee (People v. Greenlee) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Greenlee
2026 NY Slip Op 02669
April 29, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Darrel Greenlee, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 29, 2026
2024-01302, (Ind. No. 70085/22)
Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.
Cheryl E. Chambers
Deborah A. Dowling
Carl J. Landicino
Phillip Hom, JJ.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Johanny Santana of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Michael Bierce of counsel; Caleb Otero on the memorandum), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Danny K. Chun, J.), imposed January 31, 2024, sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of nine years, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of five years, upon his conviction of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of nine years, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of five years, to a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of five years; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
DUFFY, J.P., CHAMBERS, DOWLING, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court