You are here: / / Defendant Who Objected to the Amount of Restitution at Sentencing Was Entitled...

Defendant Who Objected to the Amount of Restitution at Sentencing Was Entitled to a Hearing Even Though the Restitution-Amount Was (Apparently) Specified in the Plea Agreement

The Second Department determined defendant, who objected at sentencing to the amount of restitution, was entitled to a hearing, even though the specific restitution-amount was (apparently) made part of the plea agreement.  The restitution was related to the “buy money” used by the police in a related drug deal.  The court explained the relevant law:

Under Penal Law § 60.27(9), a defendant may be ordered to pay restitution for funds used by law enforcement in the purchase of drugs, if certain prerequisites are met. Before a defendant may be directed to pay restitution, a hearing must be held if either: (1) the defendant objects to the amount of restitution and the record is insufficient to establish the proper amount; or (2) the defendant requests a hearing (see Penal Law § 60.27[2]…). This procedure must be followed even if the plea agreement contains a provision for a specific amount of restitution … . People v Morrishill, 2015 NY Slip Op 03187, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

You might also like
THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE EXCUSE; THE LOAN AGREEMENT WAS CRIMINALLY USURIOUS; THE MOTION TO DISIMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LACROSSE PLAYER JOGGING AROUND LACROSSE FIELD ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL.
RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS DESPITE HER VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SUSPENDED JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE INMATE LACKED THE CAPACITY TO MAKE A REASONED DECISION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TREATMENT FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA, PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPOSED TREATMENT WAS NARROWLY TAILORED TO THE INMATE’S NEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST; TROOPER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE PETITIONER OPERATED HIS MOTORCYCLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE UPON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS OPPOSED TO A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE COMPLIED WITH; SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE STARTED WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED BY THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED (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

The Facts that a Witness Had Given a Statement to the Police and Was on the... Defendant Alleged a Possible Defense to His Failure to Comply with an Order...