Thomas v. Del Gaizo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Del Gaizo

92 A.D.3d 993, 937 N.Y.2d 474

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 993 (Thomas v. Del Gaizo) 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

Thomas v. Del Gaizo, 92 A.D.3d 993, 937 N.Y.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Kavanagh, J.

[994]*994Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the resentencing court was not silent as to the manner in which the sentences were to run. Upon resentencing, Supreme Court explicitly stated that, except for the modification of the sexual abuse in the first degree sentences to be run concurrently, the “previous sentences will remain in effect.” The 1997 originally imposed sentences for the rape, attempted rape and assault in the second degree convictions were ordered to run consecutive to each other. Furthermore, inasmuch as a review of the record reveals no error in the calculation of the consecutively imposed sentences, Supreme Court’s judgment will not be disturbed.

Mercure, A.EJ., Peters, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Kavanagh, J.

[994]*994Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the resentencing court was not silent as to the manner in which the sentences were to run. Upon resentencing, Supreme Court explicitly stated that, except for the modification of the sexual abuse in the first degree sentences to be run concurrently, the “previous sentences will remain in effect.” The 1997 originally imposed sentences for the rape, attempted rape and assault in the second degree convictions were ordered to run consecutive to each other. Furthermore, inasmuch as a review of the record reveals no error in the calculation of the consecutively imposed sentences, Supreme Court’s judgment will not be disturbed.

Mercure, A.EJ., Peters, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 993, 937 N.Y.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-del-gaizo-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack