You are here: / / Defendant’s Refusing to Be Interviewed by the Probation Department...

Defendant’s Refusing to Be Interviewed by the Probation Department Was a Valid Ground for Sentence Enhancement

The Second Department determined the defendant’s refusing to be interviewed by the probation department was a valid ground for a sentence enhancement:

A defendant’s “failure to abide by a condition of a plea agreement to truthfully answer questions asked by [a]; probation department is an appropriate basis for the enhancement of the defendant’s sentence” … . Here, the plea condition requiring the defendant to cooperate with the Dutchess County Office of Probation and Community Corrections (hereinafter the OPCC) was explicit and objective, and the plea allocution reveals that the defendant acknowledged, understood, and accepted such condition … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly imposed an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant’s violation of the condition by refusing to be interviewed by the OPCC. People v Mazyck, 2014 NY Slip Op 03864, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

You might also like
THE IMPOUNDMENT AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, WHICH WAS LEGALLY PARKED AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, WERE ILLEGAL; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
Loan Secured by Shares in a Cooperative Apartment Was Not a “Home Loan” Subject to the Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conference Required by CPLR 3408
Title Insurance Company Insures Only Whether a Property Has Legal Access to a Street, Not Whether Physical Access to the Street Is Possible
FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNCIPAL LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE FIGHTING A FIRE CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED OSHA VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE ONE-HALF INCH DEFECT IN A STEP WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF THE CAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICY.
THE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION THAT THERE WAS NO SWIMMING POOL ON THE PROPERTY JUSTIFIED THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE FOR FIRE DAMAGE (SECOND DEPT).
RAISED PORTION OF A FLOOR MAT WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

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

“Serious Physical Injury” Element of Gang Assault Not Supported... Quantity and Nature of Child Pornography Warranted an Upward Departure in a...