People v. Stubbs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stubbs

281 A.D.2d 498, 721 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 498 (People v. Stubbs) 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. Stubbs, 281 A.D.2d 498, 721 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the de[499]*499fendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered February 11, 1999, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the defendant did not request a hearing to fix the amount of restitution and the record contained sufficient evidence to support a finding as to the out-of-pocket loss he caused, the County Court properly fixed the amount of restitution without holding a hearing (see, People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407). The amount of restitution was not excessive because “the ordinary meaning of ‘restitution’ is restoring someone to a position he occupied before a particular event” (Hughey v United States, 495 US 411, 416; see also, People v Purcell, 161 AD2d 812).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the de[499]*499fendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered February 11, 1999, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the defendant did not request a hearing to fix the amount of restitution and the record contained sufficient evidence to support a finding as to the out-of-pocket loss he caused, the County Court properly fixed the amount of restitution without holding a hearing (see, People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407). The amount of restitution was not excessive because “the ordinary meaning of ‘restitution’ is restoring someone to a position he occupied before a particular event” (Hughey v United States, 495 US 411, 416; see also, People v Purcell, 161 AD2d 812).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 498, 721 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stubbs-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack