People v. Paulin

99 A.D.3d 578, 952 N.Y.2d 543
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Paulin. Read the opinion of the Court — 74 A.D.3d 685

Opinion

The court properly exercised its discretion in finding that substantial justice dictates denial of defendant’s motion (see e.g. People v Gonzalez, 29 AD3d 400 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 867 [2006]). Defendant’s continued pattern of criminal activity while on parole and his poor prison disciplinary record demonstrate that he has little remorse for his actions. While on parole, defendant was indicted for grand larceny and conspiracy, convicted of four new misdemeanor offenses, had his parole revoked three times and committed seven infractions while incarcerated (see People v Paulin, 17 NY3d 238 [2011]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, Catterson, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

People v. Paulin, 99 A.D.3d 578, 952 N.Y.2d 543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

99 A.D.3d 578 (People v. Paulin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Paulin
952 N.E.2d 1028 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Gonzalez
29 A.D.3d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)