You are here: / / DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT BEFORE...

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT BEFORE RESENTENCING, RESENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s resentence, determined defendant should have been allowed to make a sentence before the sentence was pronounced:

At that proceeding, the defendant requested an opportunity to address the court. The court denied the defendant’s request. The defendant appeals, and we reverse.

A defendant is entitled “to make a statement personally in his or her own behalf, and before pronouncing sentence the court must ask the defendant whether he or she wishes to make such a statement” ( CPL 380.50 [1]). “[T]he provisions of CPL 380.50 apply to occasions of resentencing as well as to those of initial sentencing”  … . Here, the defendant was denied that opportunity. Accordingly, we remit the matter … for resentencing to give the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his behalf … . People v Taylor, 2020 NY Slip Op 04413, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

You might also like
Block Falling from Pallet Covered Under Labor Law 240(1)/Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained
ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ANNULLED, BOARD’S DETERMINATION BASED SOLELY ON GENERALIZED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION.
Petitioner’s Position Properly Abolished by Enactment of Town Budget
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE; IT WAS MERELY AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).
CITY’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A CITY BUS DRIVER WAS BASED ON RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, THEREFORE A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION WAS NOT VIABLE AND THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE WAS NOT DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND.
PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED BY DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT’S EMPLOYEE BASED ON A FALSE ALLEGATION AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ARRESTED; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT ON HIS BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSES OF ACTION UPHELD (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BY ENTERING A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A TESTIFYING CODEFENDANT THE TRIAL JUDGE ABANDONED... PLAINTIFF BANK’S ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION...