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
STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT DURING A CONTROLLED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE MOTHER OF THE ALLEGED CHILD VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT IN A CLOSED ROOM AT THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE, WHERE DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED AND CONFRONTED WITH HIS INCULPATORY STATEMENTS, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED, HE WAS NOT IN CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION TO THE THERAPISTS BY CONDITIONING FATHER’S VISITATION ON HIS PARTICIPATION IN THERAPEUTIC COUNSELING (FOURTH DEPT).
PHONE CALLS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON SUPPORTED CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND DEGREE BUT NOT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).
IN A MED MAL ACTION PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT NEED NOT HAVE PRACTICED IN THE SAME SPECIALTY AS DEFENDANT DOCTOR TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF LANDLORD HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LEASE BY THE TENANT; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED LOSS OF GOODWILL WAS NOT APPLICABLE; THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORED THE TENANT; THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COURT, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S RIGHT TO FILE FUTURE PETITIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT; RATHER THE TREATMENT SHOULD BE A CONDITION FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY FUNCTIONED AS A DE FACTO RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY BY PROVIDING HEALTH-RELATED SERVICES; THEREFORE THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, AVAILABLE ONLY FOR SUITS AGAINST RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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...