You are here: / / THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” POWER TO...
, ,

THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” POWER TO REDUCE AN OTHERWISE LEGAL AND APPROPRIATE SENTENCE WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL; HERE THE MAJORITY CHOSE NOT TO REDUCE THE SENTENCE; A STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED FOR A REDUCTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, over an extensive two-justice dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction by guilty plea to attempted murder and declined to reduce the eight-year sentence in the interest of justice. Defendant is seriously mentally ill and has endured almost indescribable hardships throughout his life, which are detailed in the dissent. The underlying question here is, given the prison system’s inability to properly care for the seriously mentally ill, should the appellate court exercise its power to reduce this defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. The majority answered “no” and the dissent argued “yes.” The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

From the dissent:

… [R]esearch … demonstrates that people with serious psychiatric needs are more likely to be violently victimized and housed in segregation while in prison. That research also shows that the vast majority of people with mental illness in jails and prisons do not receive care, and for those that do, the care is generally inadequate.… This is of particular concern given [defendant’s] history of suicide attempts … .

This case raises an important question: What is the utility of extended incarceration under the present circumstances? Specifically, where, among other things, the offense occurred during a time when [defendant] had been unmedicated for five days and, moreover, the record suggests—as evidenced by [defendant’s] comments to the police when arrested and a subsequent mental examination—that his severe mental illness contributed to what is his first and only criminal conviction. People v Paulino, 2024 NY Slip Op 04625, First Dept 9-26-24

Practice Point: The appellate courts have the “interest of justice” power to reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence based upon a defendant’s mental illness.

 

You might also like
Questions of Fact Re: Whether School Owed Duty of Care to Student Struck by a Car While Playing Tag Five Minutes Before School Began and Whether a Breach of that Duty Proximately Caused the Injury
IN NEW YORK THERE ARE NO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR “PRECONCEPTION NEGLIGENCE” OR “WRONGFUL LIFE;” HERE MOTHER ALLEGED THE DRUG SHE HAD BEEN TAKING FOR EPILEPSY BEFORE SHE LEARNED SHE WAS PREGNANT CAUSED THE BABY TO BE BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER WHO HAD BEEN ABUSED BY RESPONDENT FATHER IN THE CHILD’S PRESENCE; THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER IS ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN THE COURT ORDERS THE CHILD REMOVED FROM THE HOME, NOT THE CASE HERE (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Submit Expert Affidavit In Support of Meterological Data Precluded Summary Judgment Based Upon Defendant City’s Assertion It Did Not Have Sufficient Time to Remove Snow and Ice from a Sidewalk
THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS LANDLORD-TENANT ACTION WAS NOT INVALIDATED BY A CHANGE IN THE LAW BASED UPON A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ISSUED A MONTH AFTER THE STIPULATION; A “MISTAKE OF LAW” DOES NOT INVALIDATE A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY; PLAINTIFF WAS COLLATERALY ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND COGNITIVE DISORDER BY THE RULING IN HIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE (FIRST DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WITH RIGHT OF ENTRY TO INSPECT OR REPAIR DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO REPAIR THE DEFECT AT ISSUE, DEFECT WAS NOT STRUCTURAL AND DID NOT VIOLATE A STATUTORY SAFETY PROVISION (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS (FIRST 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

A SAFE ON A HIGH SHELF IN A HOTEL ROOM FELL ON PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT HOTEL DID... THE SENTENCING JUDGE MUST “PRONOUNCE SENTENCE ON EACH COUNT;” MATTER...