People v. Mainella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mainella

251 A.D.2d 1000, 675 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7015

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

DecidedJune 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 1000 (People v. Mainella) 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. Mainella, 251 A.D.2d 1000, 675 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court violated Penal Law § 70.25 (2) and (3) by imposing consecutive sentences upon his conviction of two counts of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). Defendant, however, was [1001]*1001not charged with larcenies committed by a single act or omission, or during a single incident or transaction. Each offense was a separate crime committed at a discrete time by a distinct act (see, People v Day, 73 NY2d 208; People v Pinkard, 209 AD2d 1051; People v Levine, 188 AD2d 665, lv denied 82 NY2d 708). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.— Petit Larceny.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court violated Penal Law § 70.25 (2) and (3) by imposing consecutive sentences upon his conviction of two counts of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). Defendant, however, was [1001]*1001not charged with larcenies committed by a single act or omission, or during a single incident or transaction. Each offense was a separate crime committed at a discrete time by a distinct act (see, People v Day, 73 NY2d 208; People v Pinkard, 209 AD2d 1051; People v Levine, 188 AD2d 665, lv denied 82 NY2d 708). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.— Petit Larceny.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 1000, 675 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mainella-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack