People v. Ortega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ortega

158 A.D.2d 624, 551 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2012

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 624 (People v. Ortega) 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. Ortega, 158 A.D.2d 624, 551 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

We agree with the defendant’s argument that the 1986 amendments to Penal Law § 155.30 which increased the minimum value of the property required for the crime of grand larceny in the third degree (L 1986, ch 515), should have been applied to the defendant who was sentenced after the effective date of the amendments. When an ameliorative amendment reduces the punishment for a particular crime, " 'the law is settled that the lesser penalty may be meted out in all cases decided after the effective date of the enactment, even though the underlying act may have been committed before that date’ ” (People v Behlog, 74 NY2d 237, 240; see also, People v Pierre, 157 AD2d 750).

However, we need not remit for resentencing since the defendant has already served the maximum sentence permitted for petit larceny.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

We agree with the defendant’s argument that the 1986 amendments to Penal Law § 155.30 which increased the minimum value of the property required for the crime of grand larceny in the third degree (L 1986, ch 515), should have been applied to the defendant who was sentenced after the effective date of the amendments. When an ameliorative amendment reduces the punishment for a particular crime, " 'the law is settled that the lesser penalty may be meted out in all cases decided after the effective date of the enactment, even though the underlying act may have been committed before that date’ ” (People v Behlog, 74 NY2d 237, 240; see also, People v Pierre, 157 AD2d 750).

However, we need not remit for resentencing since the defendant has already served the maximum sentence permitted for petit larceny.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 624, 551 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ortega-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack