People v. Musto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Musto

66 A.D.2d 826, 411 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14155

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 826 (People v. Musto) 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. Musto, 66 A.D.2d 826, 411 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 21, 1977, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a maximum of three years. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to a period of imprisonment for 60 days and probation for an additional period of 4 years and 10 months. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to fix the terms and conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 21, 1977, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a maximum of three years. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to a period of imprisonment for 60 days and probation for an additional period of 4 years and 10 months. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to fix the terms and conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 826, 411 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-musto-nyappdiv-1978.