You are here: / / Sentence for Which Merit Time Allowance Is Not Available Did Not Preclude...

Sentence for Which Merit Time Allowance Is Not Available Did Not Preclude Application for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act

The Third Department, over a dissent, declined to follow the 2nd Department in its application of CPL 440.46 (Drug Law Reform Act).   The defendant was eligible to apply for resentencing based upon his offense, but, under the sentence defendant was serving at the time of his application for resentencing, he was not entitled to a merit time allowance pursuant to the Correction Law.  The Third Department determined defendant was eligible to apply for resentencing:

Although defendant, having been sentenced pursuant to his drug offense convictions as a persistent felony offender, is serving a sentence that would preclude him from earning merit time pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (see Correction Law § 803 [1] [d] [ii]; Penal Law § 70.10 [2]), he was not convicted of an “offense for which a merit time allowance is not available” (CPL 440.46 [5] [a] [ii] [emphasis added]; see Penal Law §§ 10.00 [1]; 220.39).  This distinction is significant.  The Penal Law states:

“‘Offense’ means conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state or by any law, local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, or by any order, rule or regulation of any governmental instrumentality authorized by law to adopt the same” (Penal Law § 10.00 [1]).

Defendant’s offense and his sentence are thus two separate components that we decline to conflate for purposes of depriving an otherwise eligible person of the benefits of the remedial legislation that we are tasked with interpreting here.  To the extent that the [2nd] Department held to the contrary in People v Gregory (80 AD3d 624 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 806 [2011]), we decline to follow that case.  Accordingly, we find that defendant is eligible to apply for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009, and County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion.  People v Coleman, 104851, 3rd Dept 8-1-13

 

You might also like
Lane Abutting Properties Was Not Owned by Property-Owners
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERT TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Proof Requirements for Constructive Possession of Contraband Explained
ALTHOUGH THE PLANS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A HOSPITAL WERE NOT YET FINALIZED, IT WAS CLEAR THAT SUCH AN EXPANSION WAS AN ANTICIPATED RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE; THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) PROHIBITION OF “SEGMENTATION” REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPANSION AS PART OF THE “HARD LOOK” AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ZONING CHANGE (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT APPURTENANT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
Horse Deemed a “Companion Animal”/Aggravated Cruelty to Animals Conviction Upheld
Purchaser of a Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility Was Not Required to Provide Financial Assurance for the Ongoing Performance of Corrective Action Imposed Upon the Prior Owner
If the Action Challenging Governmental Action Could Have Been Brought in an Article 78 Proceeding, No Matter How the Action Is Labelled, the Four-Month Statute of Limitations Applies

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply Sheetrock Resting on Blocks Satisfied Height Differential in Labor Law 240(1)...