People v. McArdle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McArdle

70 A.D.2d 600, 416 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12018

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

DecidedMay 7, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 600 (People v. McArdle) 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. McArdle, 70 A.D.2d 600, 416 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from (1) a judgment of the [601]*601County Court, Suffolk County, rendered October 31, 1977, convicting her of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing a sentence of three years’ probation and a $16,000 fine, and (2) a sentence of the same court, imposed September 19, 1978, which ordered her incarceration, until such time as the aforesaid fine be paid, for a period not to exceed four months. Judgment rendered October 31, 1977, affirmed. Sentence imposed September 19, 1978, reversed, on the law, and case remitted to the County Court for further proceedings consistent herewith. When defendant moved, subsequent to the imposition of the fine, to be relieved of said fine, the court should not have denied her relief without holding a hearing to ascertain the truthfulness of her claimed inability to pay, and without making a determination of how much, if any, of the fine she could pay (see People v Sherman, 35 NY2d 931, revg 43 AD2d 575 on the dissenting opn of Shapiro, J.). While it appears that defendant owns certain real property, the liquidation or mortgaging of which could conceivably be applied in satisfaction of the fine, the record is silent as to the value of the property. Indeed, the County Court expressly stated, at the conclusion of a hearing held pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 80.00 and subdivision 5 of section 80.05 of the Penal Law, prior to the imposition of the fine, that it was unable to determine the amount of defendant’s "gain” attributable to her concealed ownership of these properties, because "there has been no proof adduced * * * as to the value of the real property.” Accordingly, the case is remitted for a hearing to determine the amount of the fine, if any, that defendant is able to pay. In making such a determination, the court should make findings as to (a) what property, if any, is owned by defendant, and (b) defendant’s equity in any such property. Lazer, 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 from (1) a judgment of the [601]*601County Court, Suffolk County, rendered October 31, 1977, convicting her of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing a sentence of three years’ probation and a $16,000 fine, and (2) a sentence of the same court, imposed September 19, 1978, which ordered her incarceration, until such time as the aforesaid fine be paid, for a period not to exceed four months. Judgment rendered October 31, 1977, affirmed. Sentence imposed September 19, 1978, reversed, on the law, and case remitted to the County Court for further proceedings consistent herewith. When defendant moved, subsequent to the imposition of the fine, to be relieved of said fine, the court should not have denied her relief without holding a hearing to ascertain the truthfulness of her claimed inability to pay, and without making a determination of how much, if any, of the fine she could pay (see People v Sherman, 35 NY2d 931, revg 43 AD2d 575 on the dissenting opn of Shapiro, J.). While it appears that defendant owns certain real property, the liquidation or mortgaging of which could conceivably be applied in satisfaction of the fine, the record is silent as to the value of the property. Indeed, the County Court expressly stated, at the conclusion of a hearing held pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 80.00 and subdivision 5 of section 80.05 of the Penal Law, prior to the imposition of the fine, that it was unable to determine the amount of defendant’s "gain” attributable to her concealed ownership of these properties, because "there has been no proof adduced * * * as to the value of the real property.” Accordingly, the case is remitted for a hearing to determine the amount of the fine, if any, that defendant is able to pay. In making such a determination, the court should make findings as to (a) what property, if any, is owned by defendant, and (b) defendant’s equity in any such property. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 600, 416 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcardle-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack