People v. Gutierrez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gutierrez

51 A.D.3d 536, 859 N.Y.S.2d 32

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

DecidedMay 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 536 (People v. Gutierrez) 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. Gutierrez, 51 A.D.3d 536, 859 N.Y.S.2d 32 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), entered on or about May 23, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2005, ch 643), unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a de novo determination in accordance with the decision herein.

The record does not establish any compliance with the statutory mandate (L 2005, ch 643, § 1) that “[t]he court shall offer an opportunity for a hearing and bring the applicant before it” (see People v Figueroa, 21 AD3d 337 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 753 [2005]). Additionally, by merely reciting that “substantial justice requires that this motion be denied,” the court’s order denying the motion did not comply with the requirement that any such order “must include written findings of fact and the reasons for such an order” (L 2005, ch 643, § 1, supra; see People v Williams, 45 AD3d 1377 [2007]). Accordingly, we remand for a new determination to be made in compliance with these requirements. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Catterson, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), entered on or about May 23, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2005, ch 643), unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a de novo determination in accordance with the decision herein.

The record does not establish any compliance with the statutory mandate (L 2005, ch 643, § 1) that “[t]he court shall offer an opportunity for a hearing and bring the applicant before it” (see People v Figueroa, 21 AD3d 337 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 753 [2005]). Additionally, by merely reciting that “substantial justice requires that this motion be denied,” the court’s order denying the motion did not comply with the requirement that any such order “must include written findings of fact and the reasons for such an order” (L 2005, ch 643, § 1, supra; see People v Williams, 45 AD3d 1377 [2007]). Accordingly, we remand for a new determination to be made in compliance with these requirements. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Catterson, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 536, 859 N.Y.S.2d 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gutierrez-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack