Opinion
2021-00358, 2021-00360 Ind. Nos. 7935/12, 10635/12
12-20-2023
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Roman KOSTYK, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W.L. Fahey and Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, and David Cao of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W.L. Fahey and Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, and David Cao of counsel), for respondent.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., PAUL WOOTEN, HELEN VOUTSINAS, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two resentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew J. D'Emic, J.), both imposed January 12, 2021, upon his convictions of burglary in the second degree and criminal trespass in the second degree under Indictment No. 7935/12, and burglary in the second degree and criminal trespass in the second degree under Indictment No. 10635/12, upon his pleas of guilty, after remittitur from this Court for resentencing (see People v. Kostyk, 186 A.D.3d 744, 127 N.Y.S.3d 290 ).
ORDERED that the resentences are affirmed.
" ‘The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case’ " ( People v. Green, 205 A.D.3d 1051, 1052, 166 N.Y.S.3d 892, quoting People v. Hesterbey, 121 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 994 N.Y.S.2d 421 ). "In making such a determination, factors to be considered by the court include the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant's prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant's reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant's attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life" ( People v. Sutton, 184 A.D.3d 236, 246, 125 N.Y.S.3d 739 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see CPL 720.20[1] ; People v. Johnson, 217 A.D.3d 682, 190 N.Y.S.3d 156 ; People v. Ogando, 194 A.D.3d 963, 964, 144 N.Y.S.3d 377 ; People v. Turner, 174 A.D.3d 1123, 1126–1127, 107 N.Y.S.3d 477 ).
IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, VOUTSINAS and WAN, JJ., concur.