You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO 60 DAYS...

DEFENDANT WAS ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO 60 DAYS IN JAIL AND FIVE YEARS PROBATION FOR STEALING A BREAKFAST SANDWICH FROM A RESTAURANT; EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THE SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department upheld the defendant’s sentence as a youthful offender to 60 days in jail and five years probation. Defendant stole a breakfast sandwich from a restaurant after throwing a banana at an employee, jumping over the counter, saying he had gun, and leaving the restaurant with the sandwich. This decision is significant because of the extensive dissent arguing the sentence was too harsh. People v Guilermo P., 2020 NY Slip Op 03464, First Dept 6-18-20

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD TO PAINT ONLY WHERE HE COULD REACH WITHOUT THE LADDER IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE CREDIT TRUST SUED THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE INSURED ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN OPENING COVERED BY A PIECE OF PARTICLE BOARD (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE FACED A 45-YEAR SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL WHEN THE ACTUAL SENTENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE (FIRST DEPT).
CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE ACTIONS, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).
THE INDUSTRIAL CODE REQUIRED A GUARD ON THE SAW WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THERE WAS NO PLACE TO INSTALL A GUARD ON THE SAW.
INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT.

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

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE AND INSTRUCTED... THE ORDER WAS NOT ENTERED ON CONSENT AND THEREFORE WAS APPEALABLE; GRANDPARENTS’...