People v. Golgoski

19 Citing cases

  1. People v. Edmondson

    191 A.D.3d 1015 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 12 times

    Although the dismissal of the multiplicitous count will not affect the duration of the defendant's sentence of imprisonment, it is nevertheless appropriate in this case to dismiss the count charging assault in the first degree in consideration of the stigma attached to the redundant convictions (seePeople v. Alonzo, 16 N.Y.3d at 269, 920 N.Y.S.2d 302, 945 N.E.2d 495 ; People v. Campbell, 120 A.D.3d at 827–828, 991 N.Y.S.2d 341 ; People v. Smalls, 81 A.D.3d at 861, 916 N.Y.S.2d 647 ; People v. Aarons, 296 A.D.2d 508, 745 N.Y.S.2d 487 ). The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Creekmur, 137 A.D.3d 1052, 27 N.Y.S.3d 268 ; People v. Winslow, 100 A.D.3d 1031, 954 N.Y.S.2d 625 ; People v. Golgoski, 40 A.D.3d 1138, 834 N.Y.S.2d 580 ) and, in any event, without merit (seePeople v. Baxter, 102 A.D.3d 805, 961 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; People v. Harris, 72 A.D.3d 1110, 900 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; People v. Baez, 52 A.D.3d 840, 859 N.Y.S.2d 375 ). AUSTIN, J.P., MILLER, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.

  2. People v. White

    61 Misc. 3d 149 (N.Y. App. Term 2018)   Cited 2 times

    On appeal, defendant contends that the restitution component of the sentence must be vacated, arguing, among other things, that the District Court should have conducted a hearing before imposing the restitution. Although defendant's challenge to the restitution is unpreserved for our review due to his failure to object to the imposition of restitution, contest the amount thereof or request a hearing at the time of sentencing (seePeople v. Callahan , 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992] ; People v. Isaacs , 71 AD3d 1161, 1161 [2010] ; People v. Golgoski , 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007] ), we find it appropriate to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (seePeople v. Nesbitt , 144 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2016] ; People v. Lyman , 119 AD3d 968, 970 [2014] ; People v. Lewis , 89 AD3d 1485, 1486 [2011] ). Penal Law § 60.27 (2) is clear as to when a hearing must be held in setting the amount of restitution: "Whenever the court requires restitution or reparation to be made, the court must make a finding as to the dollar amount of the fruits of the offense and the actual out-of-pocket loss to the victim caused by the offense....

  3. People v. Creekmur

    137 A.D.3d 1052 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 6 times

    In any event, to the extent that the prosecutor's questions were improper, the prosecutor's misconduct was "not so flagrant or pervasive as to deny the defendant a fair trial" (People v. Wright, 62 A.D.3d at 917, 878 N.Y.S.2d 788 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Credle, 124 A.D.3d 792, 998 N.Y.S.2d 466 ; People v. Aguilar, 79 A.D.3d 899, 912 N.Y.S.2d 676 ). Similarly, the defendant's contentions that the Supreme Court improperly failed to conduct a hearing to determine the amount of restitution, and improperly failed to consider the defendant's ability to pay restitution, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Winslow, 100 A.D.3d 1031, 954 N.Y.S.2d 625 ; People v. Isaacs, 71 A.D.3d 1161, 898 N.Y.S.2d 226 ; People v. Golgoski, 40 A.D.3d 1138, 834 N.Y.S.2d 580 ), and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Baxter, 102 A.D.3d 805, 961 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; People v. Harris, 72 A.D.3d 1110, 900 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; People v. Baez, 52 A.D.3d 840, 859 N.Y.S.2d 375 ; People v. Madrid, 52 A.D.3d 532, 859 N.Y.S.2d 715 ).

  4. People v. Creekmur

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

    Similarly, the defendant's contentions that the Supreme Court improperly failed to conduct a hearing to determine the amount of restitution, and improperly failed to consider the defendant's ability to pay restitution, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Winslow, 100 AD3d 1031; People v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 1161; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138), and, in any event, without merit (see People v Baxter, 102 AD3d 805; People v Harris, 72 AD3d 1110; People v Baez, 52 AD3d 840; People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 532). DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

  5. People v. Sparbanie

    110 A.D.3d 1119 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    Accordingly, defendant's argument is not preserved for our review ( see People v. Nickel, 97 A.D.3d 983, 984, 947 N.Y.S.2d 917 [2012],lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1013, 960 N.Y.S.2d 357, 984 N.E.2d 332 [2013];People v. Golgoski, 40 A.D.3d 1138, 1138, 834 N.Y.S.2d 580 [2007] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

  6. People v. Fisher

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    Finally, defendant's contention that County Court erred in failing to conduct a restitution hearing is unpreserved for our review ( see People v Horne, 97 NY2d 404, 414 n 3 [2002]; People v Francis , 82 AD3d 1263, 1263, lv denied 17 NY3d 795; People v Waugh , 52 AD3d 853, 856, lv denied 11 NY3d 796; People v Golgoski , 40 AD3d 1138, 1138), and we have considered the sentence imposed by County Court and find it to be neither harsh nor excessive. Mercure, J.P., Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

  7. People v. Fisher

    89 A.D.3d 1135 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 30 times

    Finally, defendant's contention that County Court erred in failing to conduct a restitution hearing is unpreserved for our review ( see People v. Horne, 97 N.Y.2d 404, 414 n. 3, 740 N.Y.S.2d 675, 767 N.E.2d 132 [2002]; People v. Francis, 82 A.D.3d 1263, 1263, 919 N.Y.S.2d 394 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 795, 929 N.Y.S.2d 103, 952 N.E.2d 1098 [2011]; People v. Waugh, 52 A.D.3d 853, 856, 859 N.Y.S.2d 318 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 796, 866 N.Y.S.2d 622, 896 N.E.2d 108 [2008]; People v. Golgoski, 40 A.D.3d 1138, 1138, 834 N.Y.S.2d 580 [2007] ), and

  8. People v. Faranda

    86 A.D.3d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    In that regard, defendant's claim that counsel did not inform him that County Court was not bound by the People's sentencing recommendation is belied by his acknowledgment of this fact in the written plea agreement ( see People v Bunce, 45 AD3d at 984). As for restitution, given the content of the written plea agreement, where defendant acknowledged that restitution in the specified amount of $105,000 would be imposed at sentencing, his agreement to that amount during the plea allocution and his lack of any objection, a restitution hearing was not required ( see Penal Law § 60.27; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138; People v Drew, 16 AD3d 840, 841; cf. People v Peters, 299 AD2d 663, 664). Therefore, counsel's failure to request a hearing did not deprive defendant of meaningful representation.

  9. People v. White

    84 A.D.3d 1641 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 13 times

    However, defendant's present claim — that the amount of restitution ordered lacks support in the record — is unpreserved for our review in light of defendant's failure to request a hearing or otherwise object to or contest the sum awarded during sentencing ( see People v Empey, 73 AD3d at 1389; People v Thomas, 71 AD3d at 1232; People v Snyder, 38 AD3d 1068, 1069). In any event, the written summary detailing the bad checks that defendant passed and the associated bank fees was sufficient to support the amount of restitution awarded ( see People v Thomas, 71 AD3d at 1232; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138). Defendant's remaining arguments, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

  10. People v. Francis

    82 A.D.3d 1263 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    On appeal, the defendant contends that the County Court erred in imposing restitution without a hearing because, inter alia, there was insufficient evidence in the record to allow the County Court to determine the amount he should pay. However, since the defendant failed to request a restitution hearing, and did not object to the amount of restitution he was required to pay, his present claims regarding the imposition of restitution are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Home, 97 NY2d 404, 414 n 3 [2002]; People v Nelson, 77 AD3d 973, lv denied 15 NY3d 954; People v Harris, 72 AD3d 1110, 1112; People v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 1161; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138). The defendant's challenge to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee also is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Ruz, 70 NY2d 942, 943; People v Fauntleroy, 57 AD3d 1167, 1168; People v Ziolkowski, 9 AD3d 915; People v Acevedo, 243 AD2d 572, 573).