People v. Luster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Luster

44 A.D.2d 664, 354 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5275

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

DecidedApril 11, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 664 (People v. Luster) 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. Luster, 44 A.D.2d 664, 354 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Brohx County, rendered on January 30, 1973, upon defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminals Term of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for resenténce in compliance with CPL 380.50. The sentencing court did not grant deféndant an opportunity to be heard before sentencing as required by CPL 380.50. [665]*665Failure to do so constitutes error necessitating a reversal of the sentence and a remand for resentencing only. (People v. Rojas, 42 A D 2d 945; People v. Williams, 42 A D 2d 931, People v. Lotz, 42 A D 2d 900.) Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Brohx County, rendered on January 30, 1973, upon defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminals Term of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for resenténce in compliance with CPL 380.50. The sentencing court did not grant deféndant an opportunity to be heard before sentencing as required by CPL 380.50. [665]*665Failure to do so constitutes error necessitating a reversal of the sentence and a remand for resentencing only. (People v. Rojas, 42 A D 2d 945; People v. Williams, 42 A D 2d 931, People v. Lotz, 42 A D 2d 900.) Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 664, 354 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-luster-nyappdiv-1974.