You are here: / / CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OR PLEA ALLOCUTION,...
,

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OR PLEA ALLOCUTION, NO ALLEGATION THE THREE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON COUNTS WERE SEPARATE ACTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined consecutive sentences should not have been imposed for the three counts of criminal possession of a weapon to which defendant pled guilty. There were no allegations of three separate acts of possession:

Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively where, inter alia, “a single act constitutes two offenses” … . Conversely, consecutive sentences may be imposed when, among other things, “the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes are separate and distinct” … . The People bear the burden of establishing the legality of consecutive sentencing … .

Here, no facts were alleged in the Superior Court Information or adduced at the defendant’s plea allocution which establish three separate acts of possession … . Accordingly, there was no basis for imposing consecutive sentences for three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree … . People v Bailey, 2018 NY Slip Op 08674, Second Dept 12-19-18

SENTENCING

You might also like
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS; SUPREME COURT HAD IMPOSED LESS SEVERE SANCTIONS, BUT THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED AND IMPOSED THE ULTIMATE SANCTION–A RARE EXAMPLE OF CONDUCT DEEMED “WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS” (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Seizure of Equipment Explained
IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER A LADDER WAS REQUIRED FOR PLAINTIFF’S WORK MANDATED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; RE: THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANT-OWNER HAD A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LADDER-SAFETY PROVISIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, THE OWNER’S LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY IS NOT BASED UPON CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY DEMAND REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE COURT’S ORDER; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT A SHOWING OF MERIT; THE ISSUE, FIRST RAISED ON APPEAL, WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 BECAUSE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WAS NOT WARRANTED, BUT PRECLUSION OF FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT, A DOCTOR, USED A PORTION OF THE TWO-FAMILY HOUSE AS A STUDY OR HOME OFFICE, THE EXCLUSION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES FROM LIABILITY FOR SIDEWALK DEFECTS APPLIED; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK 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

INSURER WAIVED THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER IN THE... FATHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT...