People v. Neff

110 A.D.2d 721
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 8, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 721 (People v. Neff) 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. Neff, 110 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Sentence modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof imposing a surcharge of $40 or, in the alternative, a three-day term of imprisonment. As so modified, sentence affirmed. Defendant may make an application to the County Court, Nassau County, for a refund of the $40, and upon proof that payment has been made, his application shall be granted.

Although the defendant has apparently satisfied that portion of the subject judgment as imposed a mandatory surcharge of $40 or, in the alternative, an additional sentence of three days’ imprisonment, by rendering full payment of the $40 surcharge, we do not choose to dismiss the issue of the propriety of the alternative three-day term of imprisonment as academic in view of the possibility of its recurrence.

As the People concede, in the event that defendant failed to pay the $40 surcharge, he could not be required to serve an [722]*722additional term of three days’ imprisonment inasmuch as he was sentenced, upon his plea of guilty to petit larceny, to the maximum term of incarceration which could be imposed for a class A misdemeanor (CPL 420.10 [4] [d]). Consequently, the imposition of a three-day jail sentence as an alternative tq the $40 surcharge was improper.

Further, where a defendant has made restitution or reparations, he shall not be required to pay a mandatory surcharge (Penal Law § 60.35 [6]). Therefore, the imposition of a $40 surcharge was inconsistent with the requirement that defendant make restitution.

Accordingly, we modify the sentence by deleting the provision thereof which imposed a surcharge of $40, or, in the alternative, a three-day term of imprisonment. Defendant may make an application in the County Court, Nassau County, for a refund of the $40. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Quinones
740 N.E.2d 231 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)
People v. Cabrera
243 A.D.2d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Travis
227 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Alleyne
214 A.D.2d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Laurino
205 A.D.2d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Willis
168 A.D.2d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Head
145 Misc. 2d 984 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Dublar
136 A.D.2d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. DeVita
132 A.D.2d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Turco
130 A.D.2d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Baker
130 A.D.2d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Berry
117 A.D.2d 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 A.D.2d 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-neff-nyappdiv-1985.