People v. Majestic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Majestic

270 A.D.2d 884, 705 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 29, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in imposing a 5% surcharge on the restitution ordered for funds expended for the purchase of controlled substances from defendant (see, Penal Law § 60.27 [9]). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating that surcharge. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Noonan, J. — Attempted Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in imposing a 5% surcharge on the restitution ordered for funds expended for the purchase of controlled substances from defendant (see, Penal Law § 60.27 [9]). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating that surcharge. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Noonan, J. — Attempted Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

People v. Majestic, 270 A.D.2d 884, 705 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 884 (People v. Majestic) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related