You are here: / / THE STANDARD FOR AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT’S REVIEW OF A SENTENCE...
,

THE STANDARD FOR AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT’S REVIEW OF A SENTENCE CLARIFIED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, remitted the matter to the Appellate Division for a determination whether a sentence reduction is warranted using the correct standard. The defendant need not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court to warrant a review of the sentence by the intermediate appellate court:

The intermediate appellate courts are empowered to reduce a sentence that, though legal, is “unduly harsh or severe” (CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). The decisions whether a sentence warrants reduction under that standard, and the extent to which the sentence should be reduced, are committed to the discretion of the intermediate appellate court, which has “broad, plenary power” to reduce the sentence “without deference to the sentencing court” … . A defendant need not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion by the sentencing court in order to obtain a sentence reduction … . People v Brisman, 2025 NY Slip Op 00123, CtApp 1-9-25

Practice Point: The correct standard for review of a sentence in an intermediate appellate court is whether the sentence is “unduly harsh or severe.” The decision to reduce a sentence is committed to the discretion of the intermediate court without deference to the sentencing court. The defendant need not show extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court.

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM’S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE’S REVENGE THEORY.
BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION APPLY TO EXCESS INSURANCE POLICIES IN THIS ASBESTOS INJURY ACTION.
Two-Year Time Limit On Bringing Suit Against Insurer for Cost of Replacement of Damaged Property Unreasonable If Replacement Cannot Reasonably Be Done Within Two Years
Hospital Did Not Owe Intoxicated Patient a Duty to Prevent Him from Leaving Hospital
PROPER PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS NOT FOLLOWED, CASE REMITTED.
In Extraordinary Circumstances, Testimony by Two-Way Video Conference Can Be Used In Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 Proceedings
DEFENDANT MAY NOT APPEAL OR COLLATERALLY ATTACK AN “ILLEGALLY LENIENT” SENTENCE BECAUSE THE SENTENCE DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DEFENDANT (CT APP).
Fact that Property Has a Use “Auxiliary or Incidental to the Main Exempt Purpose” Does Not Defeat the Real Property Tax Exemption Under RPTL 420-a

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 JUSTICE FOR INJURED WORKERS ACT (JIWA), WHICH TOOK EFFECT DECEMBER 30, 2022,... PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED,...