People v. Stephen

54 A.D.3d 782, 862 N.Y.S.2d 906

Opinion

The defendant’s contention that the resentencing provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738, §§ 1-41) violate his right to equal protection of the laws (NY Const, art I, §11; US Const, 14th Amend) and that he was subject to cruel and unusual punishment by the application of those provisions is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Vasquez, 54 [783] AD3d 783 [2008] [decided herewith]; People v Duke, 40 AD3d 872 [2007]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 NY3d 404, 408 [2006]; People v Felix, 58 NY2d 156, 161 [1983]).

The defendant’s contentions with respect to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 (L 2005, ch 643, § 1) are not properly before this Court. Spolzino, J.P., Fisher, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Stephen, 54 A.D.3d 782, 862 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

54 A.D.3d 782 (People v. Stephen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc.
846 N.E.2d 457 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Felix
446 N.E.2d 757 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Duke
40 A.D.3d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Vasquez
54 A.D.3d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)