People v. Zitrenbaum

2024 NY Slip Op 05227
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 23, 2024
DocketInd. No. 345/19
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 05227 (People v. Zitrenbaum) 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. Zitrenbaum, 2024 NY Slip Op 05227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

People v Zitrenbaum (2024 NY Slip Op 05227)
People v Zitrenbaum
2024 NY Slip Op 05227
Decided on October 23, 2024
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on October 23, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
LILLIAN WAN
DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.

2022-02649
(Ind. No. 345/19)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Zev Zitrenbaum, appellant.


James D. Licata, New City, NY (Ellen O' Hara Woods of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kevin F. Russo, J.), rendered March 9, 2022, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal sexual act in the third degree.

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). The defendant's contention that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Pena, 28 NY3d 727, 730; People v Pickett, 222 AD3d 886, 886) and, in any event, without merit, as there are no exceptional circumstances here warranting modification of the challenged sentence, which was within the permissible statutory limit (People v Parsley, 150 AD3d 894, 896).

IANNACCI, J.P., MALTESE, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

The People v. Michael Pena
71 N.E.3d 930 (New York Court of Appeals, 2017)
People v. Parsley
2017 NY Slip Op 3778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 05227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zitrenbaum-nyappdiv-2024.