You are here: / / Sentence for Which Merit Time Allowance Is Not Available Did Not Preclude...

Sentence for Which Merit Time Allowance Is Not Available Did Not Preclude Application for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act

The Third Department, over a dissent, declined to follow the 2nd Department in its application of CPL 440.46 (Drug Law Reform Act).   The defendant was eligible to apply for resentencing based upon his offense, but, under the sentence defendant was serving at the time of his application for resentencing, he was not entitled to a merit time allowance pursuant to the Correction Law.  The Third Department determined defendant was eligible to apply for resentencing:

Although defendant, having been sentenced pursuant to his drug offense convictions as a persistent felony offender, is serving a sentence that would preclude him from earning merit time pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (see Correction Law § 803 [1] [d] [ii]; Penal Law § 70.10 [2]), he was not convicted of an “offense for which a merit time allowance is not available” (CPL 440.46 [5] [a] [ii] [emphasis added]; see Penal Law §§ 10.00 [1]; 220.39).  This distinction is significant.  The Penal Law states:

“‘Offense’ means conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state or by any law, local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, or by any order, rule or regulation of any governmental instrumentality authorized by law to adopt the same” (Penal Law § 10.00 [1]).

Defendant’s offense and his sentence are thus two separate components that we decline to conflate for purposes of depriving an otherwise eligible person of the benefits of the remedial legislation that we are tasked with interpreting here.  To the extent that the [2nd] Department held to the contrary in People v Gregory (80 AD3d 624 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 806 [2011]), we decline to follow that case.  Accordingly, we find that defendant is eligible to apply for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009, and County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion.  People v Coleman, 104851, 3rd Dept 8-1-13

 

You might also like
AN UNPAID PENALTY ASSESSED FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAINTAIN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE WAS ENTERED AS A SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BY THE COUNTY CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND DEFENDANT COULD NOT MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT, IN A HEARING-LOSS CASE, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AUDIOGRAM (HEARING TEST) WITH THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION RECORD PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPERT EVIDENCE; THE AUDIOGRAM WAS NOT INCLUDED HERE AND THE BOARD DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT (BY CREDITING THE EXPERT EVIDENCE); DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
No Investment Tax Credit for Company which Delivered Natural Gas, as Opposed to Processing or Manufacturing a Product
THE REPEAL OF THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW REQUIRING VACCINATION AGAINST MEASLES IS CONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL FILED A SECOND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF THE SAME FACTS AS THE FIRST COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE CERTAIN INTENTIONAL TORTS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT, DISMISSAL OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT REQUIRED, CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO COMPLAINTS WAS ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Hearsay Not Assessed for Reliability—Determination Annulled
FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN OVERT ACT IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
EXPOSURE TO AND CONTRACTION OF COVID-19 IN THE WORKPLACE IS AN UNUSUAL HAZARD WHICH IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION LAW; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF DECEDENT CONTRACTED COVID-19 AT HIS WORKPLACE (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

Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply Sheetrock Resting on Blocks Satisfied Height Differential in Labor Law 240(1)...