People v. Piwowar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Piwowar

101 A.D.2d 686, 476 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18229

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

DecidedApril 12, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 686 (People v. Piwowar) 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. Piwowar, 101 A.D.2d 686, 476 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record establishes that, at the time of his escape, defendant was in custody as a [687]*687result of an authorized arrest based on probable cause (Penal Law, § 205.00, subd 2; § 205.05; cf. People v Tedesche, 3 AD2d 220). Additionally, although the sentencing court imposed a term of 30 days’ imprisonment and three years’ probation without specifying whether the sentences are consecutive or concurrent, section 60.01 (subd 2, par [d]) of the Penal Law provides that when a sentence is imposed along with a term of probation “[t]he sentence of imprisonment shall be a condition of and run concurrently with the sentence of probation”. Thus the sentence is made concurrent by operation of law and is not excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — escape, third degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record establishes that, at the time of his escape, defendant was in custody as a [687]*687result of an authorized arrest based on probable cause (Penal Law, § 205.00, subd 2; § 205.05; cf. People v Tedesche, 3 AD2d 220). Additionally, although the sentencing court imposed a term of 30 days’ imprisonment and three years’ probation without specifying whether the sentences are consecutive or concurrent, section 60.01 (subd 2, par [d]) of the Penal Law provides that when a sentence is imposed along with a term of probation “[t]he sentence of imprisonment shall be a condition of and run concurrently with the sentence of probation”. Thus the sentence is made concurrent by operation of law and is not excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — escape, third degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 686, 476 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-piwowar-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack