People v. Suros

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Suros

209 A.D.2d 203, 618 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10799

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 203 (People v. Suros) 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. Suros, 209 A.D.2d 203, 618 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), rendered July 13, 1993, resentencing defendant to time served, 5 years probation, 1,000 hours of community service, a $5,000 fine and payment of $196,494.92 as restitution, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree; and order, same court, entered on or about April 8, 1993, denying, in part, defendant’s motion to vacate the restitution and fine imposed, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the imposition of community service and remanding the matter to Supreme Court for resentencing and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant’s complaint regarding the manner in which the amount of restitution was determined has not been preserved for review (People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. In any event, we would find that since both defendant and his counsel consented to the restitution ordered, the court did not err in refusing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (2), or in relying upon figures recited in two letters from the victim (People v Lugo, 191 AD2d 648). Defendant’s extensive experience in numismatics, and his position as a generous benefactor of his victim, provided him with an unparalleled understanding of the "tangible and intangible” damages which resulted from his theft of numerous coins from his victim.

As the People concede, defendant was improperly sentenced to community service. Since defendant’s consent could not be inferred from earlier plea negotiations, and the court’s authority was limited to resentencing him only with respect to the fine which it had imposed (People v Yannicelli, 40 NY2d 598, 602), the matter is remanded to the Supreme Court for resentencing. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), rendered July 13, 1993, resentencing defendant to time served, 5 years probation, 1,000 hours of community service, a $5,000 fine and payment of $196,494.92 as restitution, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree; and order, same court, entered on or about April 8, 1993, denying, in part, defendant’s motion to vacate the restitution and fine imposed, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the imposition of community service and remanding the matter to Supreme Court for resentencing and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant’s complaint regarding the manner in which the amount of restitution was determined has not been preserved for review (People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. In any event, we would find that since both defendant and his counsel consented to the restitution ordered, the court did not err in refusing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (2), or in relying upon figures recited in two letters from the victim (People v Lugo, 191 AD2d 648). Defendant’s extensive experience in numismatics, and his position as a generous benefactor of his victim, provided him with an unparalleled understanding of the "tangible and intangible” damages which resulted from his theft of numerous coins from his victim.

As the People concede, defendant was improperly sentenced to community service. Since defendant’s consent could not be inferred from earlier plea negotiations, and the court’s authority was limited to resentencing him only with respect to the fine which it had imposed (People v Yannicelli, 40 NY2d 598, 602), the matter is remanded to the Supreme Court for resentencing. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 203, 618 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-suros-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack