You are here: / / RESTITUTION ORDERED AT SENTENCING (ABOUT $45OO) WAS ABOUT $500 HIGHER THAN...

RESTITUTION ORDERED AT SENTENCING (ABOUT $45OO) WAS ABOUT $500 HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT AGREED TO IN THE PLEA DEAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant is entitled to the opportunity to withdraw his plea because the amount of restitution ordered by the sentencing judge was about $500 higher than the amount ($4100) agreed to in the plea deal:

… “[A] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea” … . Because the restitution imposed exceeds the amount presented by the People to which defendant agreed at the time of the plea and he seeks, among other things, vacatur of the plea, we deem it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action … . Accordingly, we remit the matter for the purpose of allowing defendant to either accept the enhanced restitution amount or give defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . People v Waldron, 2019 NY Slip Op 07116, Third Dept 10-3-19

 

You might also like
PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR COULD NOT IMPOSE A NEW “RULE” WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN SUBJECT TO THE FORMAL RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (THIRD DEPT).
Inmate’s “Employee Assistant” Did Not Provide Meaningful Assistance in Preparation of Inmate’s Defense
BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT).
Bed and Breakfast Not Entitled to Homeowner’s Exemption
SENDING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (THIRD DEPT).
Petitioner Not Given Adequate Employee Assistance—Determination Annulled—New Hearing Ordered
Indictment Count Did Not State an Offense; Jurisdictional Defect Can Not Be Cured by Amendment

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

APPELLANT WAS NOT AGGRIEVED BY SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WHICH DENIED HER... INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE TESTING USED TO DETERMINE THE SUBSTANCES WERE CONTRABAND...