People v. Jason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jason

240 A.D.2d 760, 660 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7074

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

DecidedJune 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 760 (People v. Jason) 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. Jason, 240 A.D.2d 760, 660 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), imposed April 4, 1995, on the ground that it is illegal.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court possessed the inherent power to correct the defendant’s original sentence, which was illegal as the result of fraud and misrepresentation (see, Matter of Lockett v Juviler, 65 NY2d 182; Matter of Klein v Cowhey, 161 AD2d 643). Moreover, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he had a legitimate expectation in the finality of the original sentence (see, People v Todd, 183 AD2d 861; cf., Stewart v Scully, 925 F2d 58; People v Hoppie, 220 AD2d 528). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Copertino, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), imposed April 4, 1995, on the ground that it is illegal.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court possessed the inherent power to correct the defendant’s original sentence, which was illegal as the result of fraud and misrepresentation (see, Matter of Lockett v Juviler, 65 NY2d 182; Matter of Klein v Cowhey, 161 AD2d 643). Moreover, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he had a legitimate expectation in the finality of the original sentence (see, People v Todd, 183 AD2d 861; cf., Stewart v Scully, 925 F2d 58; People v Hoppie, 220 AD2d 528). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Copertino, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 760, 660 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jason-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack