From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ambriati

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 30, 1997
239 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 30, 1997

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly revoked the sentence of probation based upon defendant's admitted failure to make restitution payments (see, People v Holmes, 226 A.D.2d 1122, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 966). There was no need for the court to conduct further inquiry into defendant's ability to pay in view of the repeated assurances of defendant that he was able to make the required payments. Defendant's challenges to the amount and terms of the restitution fixed by the court as a condition of the original sentence of probation are not properly before us on this appeal from the judgment revoking that sentence and resentencing defendant (see, People v. Holmes, supra).

Defendant was resentenced to consecutive terms of incarceration of 2 to 6 years. In our view, the imposition of consecutive terms did not render the sentence unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Violation of Probation.)


Summaries of

People v. Ambriati

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 30, 1997
239 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Ambriati

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL T. AMBRIATI…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 30, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
659 N.Y.S.2d 606

Citing Cases

People v. Swank

We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in determining the amount of restitution imposed upon…

People v. Panek

Further, the challenge to the fine is not properly before us on the appeal from the judgment resentencing…