People v. Nickel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nickel

97 A.D.3d 983, 947 N.Y.2d 917

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

DecidedJuly 19, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 97 A.D.3d 983 (People v. Nickel) 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. Nickel, 97 A.D.3d 983, 947 N.Y.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In 2010, defendant, who operated a home cleaning business, was charged in two indictments with various crimes after she stole numerous items, including jewelry, clothing and furniture, [984]*984from approximately 14 households where she had been employed. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary in the second degree in satisfaction of both indictments, and was sentenced to six years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. County Court also directed defendant to make restitution in the amount of $3,980. Defendant appeals, and we now affirm.

Defendant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence in the record supporting the amount of restitution ordered is unpreserved for our review in light of her failure to request a hearing or otherwise challenge the restitution amount at sentencing (see People v Vasavada, 93 AD3d 893, 894 [2012]; People v White, 66 AD3d 1130, 1130-1131 [2009]). Her challenge to the duration of the order of protection issued at sentencing is similarly unpreserved (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see generally People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310 [2004]). Finally, defendant’s claim that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive is without merit.

Mercure, J.E, Rose, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

In 2010, defendant, who operated a home cleaning business, was charged in two indictments with various crimes after she stole numerous items, including jewelry, clothing and furniture, [984]*984from approximately 14 households where she had been employed. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary in the second degree in satisfaction of both indictments, and was sentenced to six years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. County Court also directed defendant to make restitution in the amount of $3,980. Defendant appeals, and we now affirm.

Defendant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence in the record supporting the amount of restitution ordered is unpreserved for our review in light of her failure to request a hearing or otherwise challenge the restitution amount at sentencing (see People v Vasavada, 93 AD3d 893, 894 [2012]; People v White, 66 AD3d 1130, 1130-1131 [2009]). Her challenge to the duration of the order of protection issued at sentencing is similarly unpreserved (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see generally People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310 [2004]). Finally, defendant’s claim that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive is without merit.

Mercure, J.E, Rose, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.3d 983, 947 N.Y.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nickel-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack