From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lynch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1998
255 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 13, 1998

Appeal from Judgment of Herkimer County Court, Kirk, J. — Robbery, 3rd Degree.

Present — Green, J. P., Pigott, Jr., Balio and Fallon, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Herkimer County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: In view of defendant's criminal record, we conclude that the sentence of incarceration imposed by County Court is not unduly harsh or severe ( see, CPL 470.15 [b]). We further conclude, however, that the court erred in determining the amount of restitution without conducting a hearing. The court properly considered the victim impact statement in making its "finding as to the dollar amount of the fruits of the offense" (Penal Law § 60.27). That statement alone, however, did not provide "a sufficient basis upon which to order restitution without a hearing" ( People v. Ashley, 162 A.D.2d 883, 885, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 852; see, People v. Barnett, 237 A.D.2d 917, 918, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 855; People v. Monette, 199 A.D.2d 589). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the amount of restitution, and, we remit the matter to Herkimer County Court to determine the amount of restitution.


Summaries of

People v. Lynch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1998
255 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SHANE P. LYNCH…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 183

Citing Cases

People v. Tierno

Defendant made no statement at the plea proceeding or at sentencing to support the amount of restitution…

People v. Raymonda

The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We agree with defendant, however, that County Court erred in…