People v. Tenzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tenzer

24 A.D.3d 107, 804 N.Y.S.2d 250

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 107 (People v. Tenzer) 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. Tenzer, 24 A.D.3d 107, 804 N.Y.S.2d 250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered November 3, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to a [108]*108term of 1 to 3 years with restitution in the amount of $14,953, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of replacing the term of 1 to 3 years with a term of six months’ imprisonment concurrent with five years’ probation, and otherwise affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered November 3, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to a [108]*108term of 1 to 3 years with restitution in the amount of $14,953, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of replacing the term of 1 to 3 years with a term of six months’ imprisonment concurrent with five years’ probation, and otherwise affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 107, 804 N.Y.S.2d 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tenzer-nyappdiv-2005.