You are here: / / THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE REQUIRED FACTORS WHEN SENTENCING...
,

THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE REQUIRED FACTORS WHEN SENTENCING DEFENDANT AFTER DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF INTERIM PROBATION; SENTENCE VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sentencing court did not take the necessary factors into consideration in sentencing defendant after defendant violated the terms of interim probation:

We agree with defendant that the court failed to exercise its discretion at sentencing. “[T]he sentencing discretion is a matter committed to the exercise of the court’s discretion . . . made only after careful consideration of all facts available at the time of sentencing” … . Due consideration should be “given to, among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence” … .

Here, the court initially imposed a sentence of interim probation and advised defendant that, if he violated the terms of interim probation, the court would impose a term of 4½ years’ incarceration with 3 years’ postrelease supervision. When defendant violated the terms of interim probation, the court informed defendant at sentencing that it would not consider a lesser sentence because “your word is your word. That was the deal. I don’t think that would speak well for the program nor would it speak well of me . . . I’d lose confidence in myself.” The court further stated that “[w]e made an agreement, we made a deal . . . I’m going to abide by that deal.” The sentencing transcript is devoid of any indication that the court considered the crime charged, defendant’s circumstances, or the purpose of the penal sanction … . Nor is there any indication that the court considered the presentence report, which was prepared after the plea. We conclude that “the sentencing transcript, read in its entirety, does not reflect that the court conducted the requisite discretionary analysis” … . People v Ruise, 2020 NY Slip Op 07785, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

 

You might also like
2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of Control of Her Vehicle
ATTEMPTED MENACING OF A POLICE OFFICER IS NOT A COGNIZABLE CRIME; CHARGING ATTEMPTED MENACING OF A POLICE OFFICER IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT WHEN DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO GO AROUND ANOTHER VEHICLE WAS BASED ON SPECULATION WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REJECTED SUPREME COURT’S RULING THAT THE ARBITRATOR “MANIFESTLY DISREGARDED SUBSTANTIVE LAW” AND THAT THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS “IRRATIONAL,” EXPLAINING THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH (FOURTH DEPT).
RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO COLLISION BETWEEN BICYCLE AND POLICE CAR, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICER WAS NOT IN PURSUIT.
Injury When Stepping Off a Ladder Not Actionable under Labor Law 240(1)—Injury Not Related to the Need for the Ladder
ALTHOUGH DOMINICA, THE EXECUTRIX OF JOSEPHINE’S ESTATE, WAS NEVER SUBSTITUTED FOR JOSEPHINE AFTER JOSEPHINE’S DEATH, DOMINICA APPEARED AND ACTIVELY LITIGATED A MOTION TO VACATE; THE FAILURE TO EFFECT SUBSTITUTION IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS A MERE IRREGULARITY; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
County Must Seek a Medical Income Execution Order (to Pay for a Child’s Health Insurance) Where No Medical Income Execution Order Has Yet Been Issued in the Case

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

THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION IN NEW YORK; PLAINTIFF’S... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S...