You are here: / / WHERE A DEFENDANT IS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH,” THE SENTENCING COURT...
,

WHERE A DEFENDANT IS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH,” THE SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT; IF THE RECORD IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE, THE SENTENCE WILL BE VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting the matter, determined defendant was an “eligible youth” but the record was silent about whether the court considered youthful offender treatment:

“Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forego it as part of a plea bargain” … . “Where a defendant is an eligible youth, the determination of whether to afford him or her youthful offender treatment must be explicitly made on the record” … . Here, even though the defendant was an eligible youth, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court made such a determination. Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing after a determination as to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment … . People v Suckoo, 2025 NY Slip Op 01396, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: If the record does not reflect that the court considered youthful offender treatment for an “eligible youth,” the sentence will be vacated.​

 

You might also like
Installing, Pursuant to a Resolution, a Temporary Barrier to Address Traffic and Speeding Problems Did Not Violate the “Prior Public Use” Doctrine
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER.
DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S QUANTUM MERUIT ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS PRECLUDED BY A WRITTEN CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYIGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Once the Insurer Shows an Exclusion to Coverage Applies, the Burden is on the Insured to Demonstrate an Exception to the Exclusion Applies
LAW STUDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL RULES FOR MISSING EXAMS DUE TO ILLNESS, FAILING GRADES ALLOWED TO STAND (SECOND DEPT).
E-MAILS CONSTITUTED NONACTIONABLE OPINION AND POSTED FLYERS PROTECTED BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE.

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

A DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT FOR SENTENCING EXTENDS TO... PLAINTIFF INSURER DENIED FOUR CLAIMS FOR NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED...