You are here: / / THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION,...
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court should have held a hearing on the amount of restitution and remitted the matter:

Penal Law § 60.27 (2) provides in relevant part that, when a court requires restitution to be made, “[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the defendant, the court must conduct a hearing” … . Here, contrary to the assertion of the People, defendant made a timely request for a restitution hearing inasmuch as he requested a hearing before the court made its determination on restitution. The court never ordered a specific amount of restitution at sentencing, and the People did not prepare the order of restitution setting forth the amount requested until the following week. Defendant raised issues with the amount and requested a hearing. Upon defendant’s request, the court was required to conduct a hearing “irrespective of the level of evidence in the record” to support the amount of restitution … . People v Osborn, 2021 NY Slip Op 05426, Fourth Deptp 10-8-21

 

You might also like
The “Special Facts” Exception to the Retroactive Applicability of a Statute Does Not Apply/A Statute Cannot Be Interpreted to Render Language Superfluous/A Municipality Cannot Challenge the Constitutionality of a State Statute/Lack of Capacity to Sue Does Not Deprive the Court of Jurisdiction
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FIND A FOSTER HOME FOR A FAMILY’S PET CAT (FOURTH DEPT).
Appeal Dismissed Pursuant to Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine Reinstated Upon Posting of a Bond
National Labor Relations Board Had First Crack at Collective Bargaining Agreement Matter Under Preemption Doctrine
PLAINTIFF PULLED A LOAD OF WASTE BACKWARDS THROUGH AN ACCESS DOOR APPARENTLY EXPECTING THE LIFT TO BE POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE DOOR; THE LIFT HAD MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR AND PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE THIRD FLOOR TO THE GROUND; THE ACCESS DOOR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LOCKED BEFORE THE LIFT MOVED TO A DIFFERENT FLOOR; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE ACCESS DOOR LOCK, A SAFETY DEVICE, WAS MISSING (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
TRIAL JUDGE’S GRANT OF A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THIS MURDER CASE WAS ERROR, HOWEVER THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL.
INVESTIGATING A MALFUNCTION CONSTITUTES COVERED REPAIR UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE IN A DEED MUST BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT). DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS COERCED BY THE JUDGE’S THREAT TO IMPOSE...