People v. Viehdeffer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Viehdeffer

288 A.D.2d 860, 732 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10651

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 860 (People v. Viehdeffer) 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. Viehdeffer, 288 A.D.2d 860, 732 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: We agree with defendant that County Court erred in imposing a 10% surcharge on the amount of restitution ordered. The affidavit of the director of the Probation Department fails to establish “that the actual cost of the collection and administration of restitution” exceéds 5% of the amount of restitution imposed (Penal Law § 60.27 [8]; see, People v Christie, 285 AD2d 980; People v Hill, 277 AJD2d 971). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the surcharge to 5%. Further, as the People concede, the permanent order of protection must be amended by limiting its duration to “three years from the date of the expiration of the maximum term of [the] * * * sentence of imprisonment actually imposed” (CPL 530.13 [4] [ii]), taking into account any jail time credit to which defendant is entitled {see, People v Christie, supra; People v Harris, 285 AD2d 980). We therefore further modify the judgment accordingly. We have considered defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Noonan, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: We agree with defendant that County Court erred in imposing a 10% surcharge on the amount of restitution ordered. The affidavit of the director of the Probation Department fails to establish “that the actual cost of the collection and administration of restitution” exceéds 5% of the amount of restitution imposed (Penal Law § 60.27 [8]; see, People v Christie, 285 AD2d 980; People v Hill, 277 AJD2d 971). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the surcharge to 5%. Further, as the People concede, the permanent order of protection must be amended by limiting its duration to “three years from the date of the expiration of the maximum term of [the] * * * sentence of imprisonment actually imposed” (CPL 530.13 [4] [ii]), taking into account any jail time credit to which defendant is entitled {see, People v Christie, supra; People v Harris, 285 AD2d 980). We therefore further modify the judgment accordingly. We have considered defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Noonan, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 860, 732 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-viehdeffer-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack