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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 1995·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

213 A.D.2d 1066 (People v. Serafini) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related