People v. Worthy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Worthy

17 A.D.3d 1156, 794 N.Y.S.2d 553

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 29, 2005·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered December 16, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.50) and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree [1157]*1157(§ 165.06). In appeal No. 2, he appeals from an order directing him to pay restitution, including a 5% designated surcharge, in the amount of $3,242.79. We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We fiirther reject defendant’s contention that the amount of restitution ordered is not supported by the record (see generally § 60.27 [2], [4] [b]; People v Swank, 278 AD2d 861 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 807 [2001]). The uncontroverted evidence at the restitution hearing established that an insurance company paid $2,557.96 for repairs to the vehicle and that the victim had rental car expenses and paid a comprehensive deductible totaling $530.41. Those amounts, together with the designated surcharge, total the amount of restitution ordered. The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered December 16, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.50) and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree [1157]*1157(§ 165.06). In appeal No. 2, he appeals from an order directing him to pay restitution, including a 5% designated surcharge, in the amount of $3,242.79. We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We fiirther reject defendant’s contention that the amount of restitution ordered is not supported by the record (see generally § 60.27 [2], [4] [b]; People v Swank, 278 AD2d 861 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 807 [2001]). The uncontroverted evidence at the restitution hearing established that an insurance company paid $2,557.96 for repairs to the vehicle and that the victim had rental car expenses and paid a comprehensive deductible totaling $530.41. Those amounts, together with the designated surcharge, total the amount of restitution ordered. The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

People v. Worthy, 17 A.D.3d 1156, 794 N.Y.S.2d 553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

17 A.D.3d 1156 (People v. Worthy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related