People v. Riddick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riddick

167 N.Y.S.3d 834, 2022 NY Slip Op 03747

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

DecidedJune 8, 2022

DocketCOLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.

StatusPublished

This text of 167 N.Y.S.3d 834 (People v. Riddick) 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. Riddick, 167 N.Y.S.3d 834, 2022 NY Slip Op 03747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

People v Riddick (2022 NY Slip Op 03747)

People v Riddick

2022 NY Slip Op 03747

Decided on June 8, 2022

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 8, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Christina Riddick, appellant.

Justine Luongo, Attorney-in-Charge of the Criminal Defense Practice, New York, NY (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel; Victoria Randall on the memorandum), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry Kron, J.), rendered January 23, 2020, convicting her of robbery in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating so much of the sentence as imposed mandatory surcharges and fees; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the period of probation imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

As consented to by the People, we modify the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharges and fees imposed on the defendant at sentencing (see CPL 420.35[2-a][c]; People v Dickerson, 201 AD3d 731; People v Santillan, 200 AD3d 1074; People v Sevaughn G., 199 AD3d 936, 937; People v Dyshawn B., 196 AD3d 638).

DUFFY, J.P., IANNACCI, MALTESE and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court

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