People v. Karmel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Karmel

72 A.D.2d 799, 421 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14059

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 799 (People v. Karmel) 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. Karmel, 72 A.D.2d 799, 421 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed May 15, 1979, upon his conviction of the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree (two counts) and forgery in the second degree, on a plea of guilty, the sentence being consecutive terms of imprisonment and a fine. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently rather than consecutively and by deleting the fine imposed. As so modified, sentence affirmed. The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed May 15, 1979, upon his conviction of the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree (two counts) and forgery in the second degree, on a plea of guilty, the sentence being consecutive terms of imprisonment and a fine. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently rather than consecutively and by deleting the fine imposed. As so modified, sentence affirmed. The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 799, 421 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-karmel-nyappdiv-1979.