From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Angelista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 9, 1991
176 A.D.2d 238 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

September 9, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).


Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant's application for a waiver of the $100 mandatory surcharge imposed by the court is premature since the defendant is presently incarcerated (see, People v. West, 124 Misc.2d 622; see also, People v. Jones, 166 A.D.2d 724; People v. Velez, 150 A.D.2d 514). If, at the conclusion of her imprisonment, the defendant is unable to pay the mandatory surcharge, she may move at that time for a waiver (see, CPL 420.35; 420.10 [5]; People v. Jones, supra; People v. Lewis, 134 A.D.2d 286).

The defendant's challenge to the imposition of the surcharge as violative of her constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of law is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Ruz, 70 N.Y.2d 942; People v. Cobb, 153 A.D.2d 642). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Angelista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 9, 1991
176 A.D.2d 238 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Angelista

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CECILIA ANGELISTA…

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

Date published: Sep 9, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 238 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

People v. Mack

The court's imposition of the mandatory surcharge was not an enhancement of the sentence which was agreed…

People v. Livieri

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly determined that there was an independent…