From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Karlas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 1994
208 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 17, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.).


Ordered that the sentence is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant's current challenge to purported inaccuracies and omissions in the presentence report is not properly before us, inasmuch as he did not object to the report or seek an adjournment for the preparation of a new report at the time of sentencing (see generally, People v. Briggs, 184 A.D.2d 1014; People v. Walworth, 167 A.D.2d 622; People v. De Torres, 96 A.D.2d 609). In any event, the defendant and his counsel received a full opportunity to discuss and supplement the presentence report, and the court's remarks indicate that it was not improperly influenced by any of the challenged statements in the report (see generally, People v. Walworth, supra; People v. George, 137 A.D.2d 876). The defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Karlas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 1994
208 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Karlas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CONSTANTINE KARLAS…

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

Date published: Oct 17, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 778

Citing Cases

People v. Vaughan

The paramount concern in determining "[w]hether sentencing is conducted in a fundamentally fair manner in…

People v. Tolliver

Defendant's remaining contention with respect to the alleged inaccuracy in the presentence report is not…