You are here: / / CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WHICH AMOUNTED TO A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE...

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WHICH AMOUNTED TO A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE WERE NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering the consecutive sentences to run concurrently, determined a de facto life sentence without parole was not warranted:

Defendant’s conviction stems from his conduct in firing a shotgun at police officers while inside his girlfriend’s home and not allowing the girlfriend’s daughter to leave the home. * * *

… [T]he sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Although defendant’s crimes were undoubtedly serious and could easily have resulted in death or injury to the officers, no one was injured or killed during the shootout. We conclude that the de facto life sentence without parole is not warranted here. We therefore modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by directing that the sentences on the counts of attempted aggravated murder shall run concurrently with each other … . People v Youngblood, 2022 NY Slip Op 00751, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

You might also like
PHONE CALLS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON SUPPORTED CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND DEGREE BUT NOT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND WAS NEVER ASSIGNED THE NOTE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE MORTGAGE; AN ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A FULLY BRIEFED MOTION ARGUMENT IS NOT A DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).
Termination for Insubordination Proper
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT DOG OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHE HAD HEARD THAT ONE OF HER DOGS NIPPED A BOY IN A PRIOR INCIDENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS OF THE INCIDENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION TO JUSTIFY THE TRAFFIC STOP AND DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST AT THE TIME DEFENDANT GOT OUT OF THE CAR; THE STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AND THE COCAINE SEIZED FROM HIS PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
CPLR 214-c, Which Starts the Statute of Limitations Upon Discovery of the Injury, Applies Only to Toxic Torts—The Statute Does Not Apply to an Action Seeking Damages for the Allegedly Negligent Approval (by the Town) of a Defective Septic System

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

COUNTY COURT COULD NOT CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE WITHOUT FORMALLY RESENTENCING... THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA AND FURTIVE MOVEMENTS...