People v. Nicosia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nicosia

137 A.D.2d 630, 524 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1020

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.2d 630 (People v. Nicosia) 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. Nicosia, 137 A.D.2d 630, 524 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), imposed July 9, 1986.

[631]*631Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the sentence imposed, albeit within the statutory limits (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [c]; [4] [b]; § 70.25 [2-b]), violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This issue was not preserved for appellate review as the defendant neither controverted his status as a second felony offender at sentencing nor contested the applicability of Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b), which, in the absence of designated factors, mandated the imposition of a consecutive sentence (see, People v Albano, 124 AD2d 739, lv denied 69 NY2d 824; People v Thomas, 108 AD2d 884). In any event, there are no exceptional circumstances to support a claim that the sentence imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment (see, People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694, 697; People v Albano, supra). Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), imposed July 9, 1986.

[631]*631Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the sentence imposed, albeit within the statutory limits (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [c]; [4] [b]; § 70.25 [2-b]), violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This issue was not preserved for appellate review as the defendant neither controverted his status as a second felony offender at sentencing nor contested the applicability of Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b), which, in the absence of designated factors, mandated the imposition of a consecutive sentence (see, People v Albano, 124 AD2d 739, lv denied 69 NY2d 824; People v Thomas, 108 AD2d 884). In any event, there are no exceptional circumstances to support a claim that the sentence imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment (see, People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694, 697; People v Albano, supra). Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 630, 524 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nicosia-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack