People v. Hayward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hayward

31 A.D.3d 1195, 818 N.Y.S.2d 720

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 2006·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), entered October 4, 2004. The order directed defendant to pay restitution in the total amount of $513.45.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon her plea of guilty of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [1]) and now challenges the amount of restitution ordered by County Court. The record establishes that a hearing to determine the amount of restitution was conducted by a referee and that, [1196]*1196when the People asked the court to order the amount recommended in the Referee’s report, defendant did not object to the amount. We thus conclude that defendant’s present challenge to the amount of restitution ordered is not properly before us (see People v Melino, 16 AD3d 908, 911 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 791 [2005] ). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Kehoe, Gorski, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), entered October 4, 2004. The order directed defendant to pay restitution in the total amount of $513.45.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon her plea of guilty of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [1]) and now challenges the amount of restitution ordered by County Court. The record establishes that a hearing to determine the amount of restitution was conducted by a referee and that, [1196]*1196when the People asked the court to order the amount recommended in the Referee’s report, defendant did not object to the amount. We thus conclude that defendant’s present challenge to the amount of restitution ordered is not properly before us (see People v Melino, 16 AD3d 908, 911 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 791 [2005] ). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Kehoe, Gorski, Green and Pine, JJ.

People v. Hayward, 31 A.D.3d 1195, 818 N.Y.S.2d 720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

31 A.D.3d 1195 (People v. Hayward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related