People v. Hollander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hollander

41 A.D.2d 528, 340 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 528 (People v. Hollander) 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. Hollander, 41 A.D.2d 528, 340 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

-Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on April 28, 1972, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree and sentencing him to a one-year term of imprisonment, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to the period served; and, as so modified, affirmed. Defendant is 34 years of age, married and-the father of two children. His difficulties with the law arose out of his involvment with drugs. It appears that defendant, who is now gainfully employed, has completely discontinued the use of drugs and is firmly on the path to rehabilitation. Accordingly, under the circumstances here disclosed, we conclude that this is a proper case for us to exercise our discretion and that no useful purpose would be served by requiring defendant to complete the sentence imposed. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Murphy, Steuer, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

-Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on April 28, 1972, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree and sentencing him to a one-year term of imprisonment, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to the period served; and, as so modified, affirmed. Defendant is 34 years of age, married and-the father of two children. His difficulties with the law arose out of his involvment with drugs. It appears that defendant, who is now gainfully employed, has completely discontinued the use of drugs and is firmly on the path to rehabilitation. Accordingly, under the circumstances here disclosed, we conclude that this is a proper case for us to exercise our discretion and that no useful purpose would be served by requiring defendant to complete the sentence imposed. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Murphy, Steuer, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 528, 340 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hollander-nyappdiv-1973.