You are here: / / DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESENTENCED ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGE PURSUANT...
,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESENTENCED ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGE PURSUANT TO CPL 420.10 FOR FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THAT STATUTE; RESENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, vacated defendant’s resentence. Once a defendant is sentenced, the court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter. Here, after it was determined defendant had willfully failed to pay the ordered restitution, defendant was resentenced to prison on the original conviction. By statute a defendant may be resentenced for failure pay restitution, but only after the court makes a finding the defendant is unable to pay due to indigency. No such finding was made here:

CPL 420.10 (3) provides that, when a court imposes restitution as part of a defendant’s sentence, the court can imprison the defendant if he or she fails to pay restitution; such provision authorizing imprisonment for failure to pay restitution can be set forth at the time of sentencing or may be added “at any later date while the . . . restitution . . . or any part thereof remains unpaid” (CPL 420.10 [3]). Although County Court therefore retained jurisdiction under the auspices of this statute, it erred in resentencing defendant pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5). As relevant here, CPL 420.10 (5) provides that, “[i]n any case where the defendant is unable to pay a fine, restitution or reparation imposed by the court, he [or she] may at any time apply to the court for resentence.” Resentencing is authorized “if the court is satisfied that the defendant is unable to pay the fine, restitution or reparation” (CPL 420.10 [5]). Here, there was no finding by the court that defendant was unable to pay the restitution due to indigency … . … [W]e refuse to equate defendant’s acceptance of the global agreement [agreeing to 81/2 to 25 years in prison including time served] with the application necessary to resentence him under CPL 420.10 (5) … . County Court could have sentenced defendant to a year in prison for his failure to pay under CPL 420.10 (3) and (4), but it did not. As it erred in utilizing CPL 420.10 (5), the resentence must be vacated. People v Marone, 2022 NY Slip Op 01070, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

You might also like
Criteria for Negligent Highway Design Explained—Qualified Immunity Is Part of the Analysis of Liability
RETALIATORY EVICTION, CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS EVICTION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED INCARCERATED FATHER’S PRO SE PETITION SEEKING VISITATION BASED UPON THE EXISTENCE OF TWO ORDERS OF PROTECTION, THE FAMILY COURT ORDER OF PROTECTION, BY LAW, EXPIRED AFTER ONE YEAR, NOT WITHSTANDING A 2022 EXPIRATION DATE IN THE ORDER, AND THE ORDER OF PROTECTION IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).
PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE NUISANCE EXPLAINED; BECAUSE DEFENDANTS SOLD THEIR PROPERTY, THE APPEAL RELATED TO THE INJUNCTION CAUSE OF ACTION WAS MOOT (THIRD DEPT).
ATTEMPT TO CONTEST THE NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ FAILURE TO PLUG THE LLC LOOPHOLE, WHICH ALLOWS HIGHER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR LLC’S THAN FOR CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS, PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND LACK OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY (THIRD DEPT).
MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL.
THE FINDING BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WAS NEVER FILED AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL CITY LAW; THEREFORE THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR CONTESTING THE RULING NEVER STARTED TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).
THE CHARGES STEMMED FROM A DEMONSTRATION SPARKED BY THE POLICE KILLING OF GEORGE FLOYD; DEFENDANT THREW TWO MOLOTOV COCKTAILS TOWARD POLICE OFFICERS; THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN “TERRORISM” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; SENTENCE REDUCED (THIRD 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 3RD DEPARTMENT, JOINING THE 2ND, HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE... ALLOWING THE PEOPLE’S INVESTIGATOR TO GO INTO THE JURY ROOM DURING DELIBERATIONS...