From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ware

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 12, 1990
163 A.D.2d 177 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Summary

holding that customer lists containing publicly known entities may nonetheless contain non-public information

Summary of this case from IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS v. LEICHTNAM

Opinion

July 12, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.).


We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction", we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms." (People v. Felman, 141 A.D.2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 918.)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Ware

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 12, 1990
163 A.D.2d 177 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

holding that customer lists containing publicly known entities may nonetheless contain non-public information

Summary of this case from IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS v. LEICHTNAM
Case details for

People v. Ware

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LUTHER WARE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 12, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 177 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
558 N.Y.S.2d 38

Citing Cases

IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS v. LEICHTNAM

For example, personal contacts and spending habits of publicly known entities may nonetheless represent…