From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1989
147 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 3, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, Jr., J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Except in certain enumerated cases not applicable here, Penal Law § 70.25 permits the court, when imposing multiple sentences, to direct that the sentences run either concurrently or consecutively. Thus, the court was not precluded from directing that defendant's definite sentence run consecutively with his indeterminate sentence. Penal Law § 70.25, however, must be read with Penal Law § 70.35. Defendant's definite sentence will be satisfied "only where the defendant actually serves the indeterminate sentence. If such sentence is vacated, the definite sentence must be served. No credit is granted against either sentence for time served under the other." (Commn Staff Notes to Proposed New York Penal Law § 30.35 [enacted as § 70.35] [1964 Special Pamph]; see also, People ex rel. McGuire v Smith, 54 A.D.2d 1066; Matter of Whittaker v Smith, 51 A.D.2d 858, appeal dismissed 41 N.Y.2d 943.)


Summaries of

People v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1989
147 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DOUGLAS J. MOORE…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Simpson v. Artuz

However, if we were to apply § 70.35 as it existed before the 1989 amendment, it is equally clear that…

People v. Tortorice

On the remaining five counts of endangering the welfare of a child, he was sentenced to five nine-month…