People v. Serafini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Serafini

213 A.D.2d 1066, 624 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3913

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1066 (People v. Serafini) 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. Serafini, 213 A.D.2d 1066, 624 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). We reject the [1067]*1067contention, raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief, that the sentencing court lacked authority to order restitution in the amount of $5,000. Both defendant and his counsel expressly agreed to that amount. Thus, the court did not err in directing defendant to pay restitution in that amount to the Rochester Police Department even though that Department failed to file an affidavit required by Penal Law § 60.27 (9) (see, People v Perez, 203 AD2d 665, 667, lv denied 83 NY2d 970). Further, the court was not required to conduct a hearing on the amount of restitution (see, People v Lugo, 191 AD2d 648). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). We reject the [1067]*1067contention, raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief, that the sentencing court lacked authority to order restitution in the amount of $5,000. Both defendant and his counsel expressly agreed to that amount. Thus, the court did not err in directing defendant to pay restitution in that amount to the Rochester Police Department even though that Department failed to file an affidavit required by Penal Law § 60.27 (9) (see, People v Perez, 203 AD2d 665, 667, lv denied 83 NY2d 970). Further, the court was not required to conduct a hearing on the amount of restitution (see, People v Lugo, 191 AD2d 648). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1066, 624 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-serafini-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack