You are here: / / IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF...

IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED; PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sentencing court erroneously considered a crime of which defendant was acquitted in sentencing. The Second Department further noted that the People did not demonstrate that the assault and robbery convictions were based upon different underlying facts, therefore the sentences must run concurrently:

Certain remarks made by the sentencing court demonstrate that it improperly considered a crime of which the defendant was acquitted as a basis for sentencing. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted … for resentencing … . Further, since the People failed to establish that the acts underlying the conviction of assault in the first degree were separate and distinct from the acts underlying the conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree, the sentences imposed on remittal are to run concurrently … . People v Newman, 2017 NY Slip Op 06086, Second Dept 8-9-17

CRIMINAL LAW (IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING (IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT))/CONCURRENT SENTENCES (IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Fall After Coverage Ceased Not Covered, Even though Dangerous Condition Alleged to Have Existed Before Termination of Coverage
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL HAD NOTIFIED ALL PARTIES HE WAS NO LONGER REPRESENTING PLAINTIFF, THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, THEREFORE THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF PRO SE WAS NOT VALID.
THE TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED RELIGIOUS USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE-OF-PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN CPLR 308 AND 311 ARE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS, NOT “TECHNICAL” DEFECTS WHICH CAN BE OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE DESPITE PARTIES’ EXPECTATION A MORE FORMAL CONTRACT WOULD BE EXECUTED LATER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO TOWERS, TWICE THE HEIGHT OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS, DID NOT VIOLATE THE NYC ZONING RESOLUTION, THEREFORE THE NYC PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE JURY WAS GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY CHARGE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO A KITTEN SHIPPED BY AIR LIMITED TO $50 BY THE TERMS OF THE AIR WAYBILL (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

IN THE FACE OF A COMPLETE WRITTEN AGREEMENT, EVIDENCE OF A RELATED ORAL AGREEMENT... ADMISSION OF A CHART SHOWING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF A GANG WAS (HARMLESS)...