People v. McRae

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McRae

88 A.D.3d 552, 931 N.Y.2d 228

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.3d 552 (People v. McRae) 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. McRae, 88 A.D.3d 552, 931 N.Y.2d 228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In the May 5 order (indictment No. 6372/04), the court denied the motion on the merits. We conclude that the court providently exercised its discretion when it determined that substantial justice dictated denial of the application in light of the seriousness of defendant’s criminal history, which outweighed the mitigating factors he cited (see e.g. People v Gumbs, 66 AD3d 558 [2009], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 771 [2010]). The underlying facts of several of defendant’s convictions indicate an involvement in large-scale drug distribution.

The appeals from the other two orders are moot because Supreme Court has granted defendant’s renewed motions for resentencing as to those matters. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

In the May 5 order (indictment No. 6372/04), the court denied the motion on the merits. We conclude that the court providently exercised its discretion when it determined that substantial justice dictated denial of the application in light of the seriousness of defendant’s criminal history, which outweighed the mitigating factors he cited (see e.g. People v Gumbs, 66 AD3d 558 [2009], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 771 [2010]). The underlying facts of several of defendant’s convictions indicate an involvement in large-scale drug distribution.

The appeals from the other two orders are moot because Supreme Court has granted defendant’s renewed motions for resentencing as to those matters. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 552, 931 N.Y.2d 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcrae-nyappdiv-2011.