Thompson v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Fischer

92 A.D.3d 1010, 937 N.Y.2d 717

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 1010 (Thompson v. Fischer) 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

Thompson v. Fischer, 92 A.D.3d 1010, 937 N.Y.2d 717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

—Spain, J.

We affirm. At the outset, we note that petitioner has abandoned his challenge to the calculation to his minimum term of imprisonment by failing to raise it in his brief to this Court (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 84 AD3d 1604, 1605 [2011]). Instead, the sole contention advanced by petitioner is his request that [1011]*1011his sentence be reduced pursuant to CPL 470.15. However, as this Court has previously noted, such a request for a sentence to be reduced in the interest of justice is beyond the scope of a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Pride v Goord, 285 AD2d 766, 767 [2001]; Matter of Flowers v Miller, 284 AD2d 618, 619 [2001]; compose People v Mead, 53 AD3d 927, 928 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 834 [2008]).

Mercure, A.RJ., Rose, 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

—Spain, J.

We affirm. At the outset, we note that petitioner has abandoned his challenge to the calculation to his minimum term of imprisonment by failing to raise it in his brief to this Court (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 84 AD3d 1604, 1605 [2011]). Instead, the sole contention advanced by petitioner is his request that [1011]*1011his sentence be reduced pursuant to CPL 470.15. However, as this Court has previously noted, such a request for a sentence to be reduced in the interest of justice is beyond the scope of a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Pride v Goord, 285 AD2d 766, 767 [2001]; Matter of Flowers v Miller, 284 AD2d 618, 619 [2001]; compose People v Mead, 53 AD3d 927, 928 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 834 [2008]).

Mercure, A.RJ., Rose, 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 1010, 937 N.Y.2d 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack