From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reising

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 1984
106 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

December 17, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).


Sentence affirmed.

Whether a continuance should be granted rests in the discretion of the Trial Judge (e.g., People v. Cable, 63 N.Y.2d 270) and on this record, we cannot say that it was an improvident exercise of discretion to refuse to adjourn sentencing for two weeks (see People v. Sprow, 104 A.D.2d 1056; People v. Matta, 103 A.D.2d 756). The sentence imposed was in accordance with the bargained plea and appellate modification is not warranted (cf. People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Titone, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Reising

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 1984
106 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Reising

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH T. REISING…

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

Date published: Dec 17, 1984

Citations

106 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

People v. Mitchell

Moreover, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to deny defense counsel's request…

People v. Arroyo

Despite the fact that burglary in the second degree may be committed by either entering or remaining…