From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Daprano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 5, 1996

Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.).


Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court was not divested of jurisdiction in this matter as a result of the delay in imposing restitution (see, People v. Drake, 61 N.Y.2d 359). The defendant entered his plea of guilty with the understanding that he would be ordered to pay restitution in addition to serving a prison sentence. Moreover, the People proffered a reasonable explanation for the delay (see, People v Drake, supra).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Daprano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Daprano

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LOUIS A. DAPRANO…

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 318

Citing Cases

People v. Swiatowy

"Normally the court should determine the amount of restitution at the time of sentencing" ( People v.…

People v. Naumowicz

Thus, in the normal course of events, the People must "advise the court at or before the time of sentencing…