You are here: / / SENTENCE DEEMED UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).

SENTENCE DEEMED UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s sentence (12 years) was unduly harsh and imposed a sentence (eight years) close to that promised before defendant rejected the offer and went to trial:

The charges arose from defendant’s unsuccessful attempt to rob a cab driver at knifepoint. Sitting behind the victim, defendant pulled out a knife and put it to the victim’s neck. The victim grabbed the knife and a struggle ensued during which the vehicle, which had been stopped, started moving and crashed into a tree. During the struggle, the victim sustained a wound to his hand (from grabbing the knife) and a cut on his neck that was not life threatening. Both men then exited the vehicle. …

After realizing that the victim had been injured, defendant yelled for help and said, “I did it.” Defendant took off his sweatshirt and offered it to the victim to staunch the bleeding. When neighbors and others arrived at the scene, they saw defendant crying and pleading with them to help the victim. Although no one prevented him from fleeing, defendant remained at the scene until the police arrived and was taken into custody without incident. When approached by the responding officer, defendant said, “Officer, I stabbed him. I was trying to rob him.” While in custody, defendant repeatedly asked whether the victim was going to be all right. The victim was given stitches for his wounds and released from the hospital later that night.

We agree with defendant that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Defendant was 41 years old when he committed the crimes in this case, and he had previously been convicted of only one other crime, a misdemeanor in 2001 for which he was sentenced to probation. The presentence report indicates that defendant has an extensive history of mental illness and no prior incidents of violence. People v Zdatny, 2021 NY Slip Op 01659, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
THE PROSECUTOR RECOMMENDED A LEVEL ONE RISK ASSESSMENT BUT THE JUDGE ASSESSED ADDITIONAL POINTS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING RAISING THE RISK LEVEL TO TWO; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19 VACCINE JUSTIFIED THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING TO THAT EFFECT DID NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY AND WAS NOT IRRATIONAL (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND SITTING ON THE BACKSEAT OF A POLICE CAR WHEN HE WAS ASKED QUESTIONS, INCLUDING WHETHER HE HAD BEEN DRINKING, BY THE OFFICER WHO MADE THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS THAT RESPONDENT INSTALLED SOFTWARE ON PETITIONER’S COMPUTER ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO CONTROL THE COMPUTER REMOTELY, AND ALLEGATIONS RESPONDENT MADE PHONE CALLS TO PETITIONER INTENDED TO BE THREATENING, SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE FAMILY OFFENSES OF HARASSMENT AND STALKING (FOURTH DEPT).
Exception to Written Notice of Defect Prerequisite Did Not Apply; Question of Fact Whether Municipality Created Dangerous Condition (Gap in Bridge-Roadway)
THE POLICE OFFICER INJURED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND THE CITY SEEKING RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS MADE STEMMING FROM THE OFFICER’S INJURY MUST SHARE THE $100,000 “PER PERSON” INSURANCE-POLICY LIMIT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING COVERAGE TO A PARTY LISTED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED IN A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though They Were Not Named in the Notice of Claim

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

THE SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT... DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION...