People v. Reising

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reising

106 A.D.2d 522, 483 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21565

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 522 (People v. Reising) 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. Reising, 106 A.D.2d 522, 483 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), imposed November 28, 1983, upon his plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, the sentence being four years to life imprisonment.

Sentence affirmed.

[523]*523Whether a continuance should be granted rests in the discretion of the Trial Judge (e.g., People v Cable, 63 NY2d 270) and on this record, we cannot say that it was an improvident exercise of discretion to refuse to adjourn sentencing for two weeks (see People v Sprow, 104 AD2d 1056; People v Matta, 103 AD2d 756). The sentence imposed was in accordance with the bargained plea and appellate modification is not warranted (cf. People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), imposed November 28, 1983, upon his plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, the sentence being four years to life imprisonment.

Sentence affirmed.

[523]*523Whether a continuance should be granted rests in the discretion of the Trial Judge (e.g., People v Cable, 63 NY2d 270) and on this record, we cannot say that it was an improvident exercise of discretion to refuse to adjourn sentencing for two weeks (see People v Sprow, 104 AD2d 1056; People v Matta, 103 AD2d 756). The sentence imposed was in accordance with the bargained plea and appellate modification is not warranted (cf. People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 522, 483 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reising-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack