From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Serafini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1995
213 A.D.2d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 17, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.

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


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe (see, CPL 470.15 [b]). We reject the contention, raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief, that the sentencing court lacked authority to order restitution in the amount of $5,000. Both defendant and his counsel expressly agreed to that amount. Thus, the court did not err in directing defendant to pay restitution in that amount to the Rochester Police Department even though that Department failed to file an affidavit required by Penal Law § 60.27 (9) (see, People v Perez, 203 A.D.2d 665, 667, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 970). Further, the court was not required to conduct a hearing on the amount of restitution (see, People v. Lugo, 191 A.D.2d 648).


Summaries of

People v. Serafini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1995
213 A.D.2d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Serafini

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID SERAFINI…

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

Date published: Mar 17, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 328

Citing Cases

People v. Tracey

Initially, insofar as the record discloses that defendant entered into a knowing and voluntary waiver of his…

People v. Krysztof

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Balio and Boehm, JJ. Judgment unanimously affirmed (see, People v.…