People v. Sims

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sims

46 A.D.3d 367, 848 N.Y.S.2d 59

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 367 (People v. Sims) 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. Sims, 46 A.D.3d 367, 848 N.Y.S.2d 59 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 (L 2005, ch 643), unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated denial of the application (see e.g. People v Vasquez, 41 AD3d 111 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 870 [2007]). The court considered the appropriate criteria for granting or denying such an application, with particular reference to defendant’s very serious criminal record. In its decision, the court expressly stated the applicable standard. While the court used different language elsewhere in its decision, we do not read that language as indicative of a misapprehension by the court of the correct legal standard (cf. People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780 [1992]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 (L 2005, ch 643), unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated denial of the application (see e.g. People v Vasquez, 41 AD3d 111 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 870 [2007]). The court considered the appropriate criteria for granting or denying such an application, with particular reference to defendant’s very serious criminal record. In its decision, the court expressly stated the applicable standard. While the court used different language elsewhere in its decision, we do not read that language as indicative of a misapprehension by the court of the correct legal standard (cf. People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780 [1992]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 367, 848 N.Y.S.2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sims-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack