SURCHARGE – New York Appellate Digest https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com Sun, 06 Dec 2020 00:57:47 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Favicon-Blue-01-36x36.png SURCHARGE – New York Appellate Digest https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com 32 32 171315692 Restitution to Police Department Re: Expenses of Drug Bust Proper https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/2013/10/04/restitution-to-police-department-re-expenses-of-drug-bust-proper/ Sat, 05 Oct 2013 00:12:59 +0000 http://newyorkappellatedigest.com/?p=21434 The Fourth Department determined defendant was properly ordered to pay restitution to the police department in a drug case, but that payment of a surcharge should not have been ordered:

… [A] defendant convicted of, inter alia, a class C “ ‘felony involving the sale of a controlled substance’ may be ordered to repay a law enforcement agency ‘the amount of funds expended in the actual purchase’ of a controlled substance” … .  Section 60.27 (9) was amended in 1991 “to authorize restitution to law enforcement agencies for unrecovered funds utilized to purchase narcotics as part of investigations leading to convictions” … .  We therefore conclude … that the court properly directed defendant to pay restitution to the City of Oswego Police Department for the funds it expended in buying drugs from him.

The People correctly concede with respect to defendant’s further contention … that the court erred in imposing a surcharge on that restitution order.  Penal Law § 60.27 (9) further provides that “[a]ny restitution which may be required to be made to a law enforcement agency pursuant to this section . . . shall not include a designated surcharge.”  People v Boatman, 940, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

]]> 21434 Error Relating to Assessment of 10% Surcharge Must Be Preserved by Objection https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/2013/04/26/error-relating-to-assessment-of-10-surcharge-must-be-preserved-by-objection/ Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:28:54 +0000 http://newyorkappellatedigest.com/?p=32754 Over two dissents, the Fourth Department determined the argument that a probation officer’s affidavit was not sufficient to justify a 10% surcharge must be preserved for appeal.  The Fourth Department wrote:

We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the issue whether a surcharge of 10% is properly imposed does not require preservation. While this Court has in the past relied on the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement of CPL 470.05 (2) when reviewing that issue …, more recent decisions from the Court of Appeals have established that issues regarding restitution require preservation …. In addition, the Court of Appeals has held that the mandatory surcharge set forth in Penal Law § 60.35
(1) is not part of a sentence ….Those cases compel us to conclude that an issue regarding a surcharge imposed on restitution pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (8) must be preserved for our review and that we cannot rely on the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement.   People v Kirkland, KA 11-01835, 147, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

]]> 32754