You are here: / / THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THAT THE SENTENCE...
,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THAT THE SENTENCE RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH A SENTENCE WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN IMPOSED BY A DIFFERENT COURT; THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE REMEDY IS TO STRIKE THE DIRECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, In a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined the sentencing court did not have the authority to order the sentence to run consecutively with a sentence that had not yet been imposed by a different court. The appropriate appellate remedy is to strike the directive, rather than send the matter back for resentencing:

A sentencing court has no power to dictate whether its sentence will run concurrently or consecutively to another sentence that has not yet been imposed. When a sentencing court violates that rule and purports to direct the relationship between its present sentence and an anticipated forthcoming sentence, the proper remedy is usually to strike the improper directive, not to remit for a new sentencing proceeding at which the court could exercise the very power it lacked originally. * * *

Rather than remitting for resentencing, the proper remedy under these circumstances is to simply vacate County Court’s improper directive with respect to consecutive sentencing. That remedy will put defendant in the same position as if County Court had not issued that illegal directive in the first place. Such a remedy will also adequately “protect” the People’s interests, since it will place them in the exact position they would have occupied had County Court not issued its illegal directive. Indeed, because the People had no legitimate right or interest in County Court’s original illegal sentence, the People have no right or interest that could be “protected” with a remittal order calculated only to achieve the very outcome — consecutive sentencing — that they had no right to obtain in the first place. People v Barthel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04834, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

You might also like
ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONERS DID NOT TAKE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AND THE POWER PLANT BECAME OPERATIONAL AT THE OUTSET OF THE MOTION PRACTICE SEEKING TO VACATE CERTAIN PERMITS WHICH ALLOWED THE PLANT TO RESUME OPERATIONS, THE APPEAL WAS DEEMED MOOT AND THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
RESPONDENT JUVENILE WAS NOT INFORMED THE FACT FINDING HEARING IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WOULD GO FORWARD IN HIS ABSENCE (THE PARKER WARNING); THEREFORE RESPONDENT DID NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND THE ADJUDICATION WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF HIS ABSENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED A TEENAGER WHO COMMITTED RACIALLY-MOTIVATED MASS MURDER WAS ADDICTED TO SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT PRESENTING THE VIEW THAT WHITES ARE BEING REPLACED BY NON-WHITES; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED TO BE ADDICTIVE; OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE DEFENDANT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEEMED IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THIRD-PARTY CONTENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION; THE ISSUE FALLS WITHIN A NARROW EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Court Properly Awarded Sole Custody to Mother, Despite Expressed Wishes of Adolescent Child
Frisk Not Justified Under DeBour Analysis
MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE MAYOR’S STATEMENTS WERE TRUE AND DID NOT EVINCE MALICE; PLAINTIFF’S... PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE...