You are here: / / APPELLATE DIVISION REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE USING ITS PLENARY...

APPELLATE DIVISION REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE USING ITS PLENARY POWER, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT (1) THE SENTENCE WAS WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMITS, (2) THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, AND (3) DEFENDANT HAD AN EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL HISTORY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, exercised its power to modify an unduly harsh or severe sentence that is within the permissible range. Defendant, who was homeless, attempted to buy toothpaste with a counterfeit $20 bill. The sentence was reduced from 4 to 8 years to 3 to 6 years:

The Appellate Division has “broad plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances, even though the sentence may be within the permissible statutory range” … . A trial court need not abuse its discretion for the Appellate Division to substitute its own discretion … . We may “reduce a sentence in the interests of justice, taking into account factors such as defendant’s age, physical and mental health, and remorse” … .

The immediate object of defendant’s crime was to purchase basic human necessities, including food and toothpaste. In consideration of the fact that he was a 53 year-old, unemployed homeless man, with longstanding medical and substance abuse issues, a reduction of his sentence to 3 to 6 years is appropriate.

Defendant’s extensive criminal history does not preclude a determination that his sentence is excessive … . People v Mitchell, 2019 NY Slip Op 00371, First Dept 1-22-19

 

You might also like
INTRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT’S TWO-YEAR-OLD FIREARM CONVICTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT DEFENDANT “OPENED THE DOOR” WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT HAD NOT QUESTIONED THE PROPRIETY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT OR THE OFFICER’S CONCLUSION THE BULGE IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET WAS A FIREARM; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE TWO-STEP MOLINEUX ANALYSIS, WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT INTRODUCTION OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT).
Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Denied—No Showing of Good Cause for the Delay/Motion Was Mislabeled as a Cross Motion
DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE; POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF WILL NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE (FIRST DEPT). ​
VASTLY DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF THE INCIDENT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER’S MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES IMPAIRED THE CHILDREN; ONE INCIDENT IN WHICH MOTHER SLAPPED HER SON WHEN HE WAS RUDE AND DISRESPECTFUL DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FIRST DEPT).
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WERE ISSUED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE SIX MONTHS ALLOWED BY CPLR 205 (a) TO REFILE A DISMISSED ACTION, THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ARGUMENT THAT SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG DATE TO CALCULATE THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD PROPERLY RAISED AND CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN WHERE A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY PLED THE COURT WILL SEARCH THE RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HERE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE THERE WAS NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ORAL CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE EVEN IF THE TRIGGERING EVENT OCCURRED AFTER A YEAR, THE CONTRACT WAS WITHIN THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS AND THEREFORE MUST IN BE WRITING (FIRST 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

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF ON A SUBWAY FOR A TRANSIT... THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE WAS...