You are here: / / ONLY ONE FINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WHERE TWO CONVICTIONS AROSE FROM...

ONLY ONE FINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WHERE TWO CONVICTIONS AROSE FROM THE SAME ACT.

The Fourth Department determined one fine, not two, should have been imposed on two convictions arising from the same act:

We agree with defendant, however, that the fines are illegal to the extent the court imposed a fine on both a conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree that arose from a single act … . People v Regatuso, 2016 NY Slip Op 04836, 4th Dept 6-17-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ONLY ONE FINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WHERE TWO CONVICTIONS AROSE FROM THE SAME ACT)/SENTENCING (ONLY ONE FINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WHERE TWO CONVICTIONS AROSE FROM THE SAME ACT)/FINES (CRIMINAL LAW, (ONLY ONE FINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WHERE TWO CONVICTIONS AROSE FROM THE SAME ACT)

You might also like
PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION (CONVICTION NOT REVERSED HOWEVER); INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION.
THE COVID-19 TOLLS SUSPENDED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE RENDERING THE ACTION TIMELY COMMENCED (FOURTH DEPT).
Youthful-Offender Sentence In Excess of Four Years (After Probation Violation) Illegal
Supreme Court Properly Considered Documentary Evidence Re: a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)—Limited Role of Such Evidence in this Context Clarified/Criteria for Specific Performance of a Real Estate Contract Explained
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S LANE CHANGE CONSTITUTED A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS REAR-END COLLISION, PLEA TO FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE ONLY IF THE VIOLATION IS UNEXCUSED.
THE PROOF DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED A FIREARM FOUND IN THE CEILING OF A HOUSE WHERE DEFENDANT WAS A GUEST WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE FIREARM AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AT THE TIME THE FIREARM WAS SEIZED (FOURTH DEPT).
RODRIGUEZ HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SINGLE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY.
Broad Arbitration Clause Required Arbitration of Topic Not Directly Covered by Collective Bargaining Agreement

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

DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED... STRIKING ANSWER TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE TAPES...