From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 1991
177 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 25, 1991

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).


Ordered that the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 63477 is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 68007 is modified, as a matter of law, by deleting therefrom the provision directing the payment of restitution; as so modified, the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 68007 is affirmed.

The defendant argues that it was error for the sentencing court to direct him to pay restitution in the amount of $30 to the Nassau County Police Department. This sum represents the unrecovered, so-called "buy" money which was expended during an undercover drug sale on June 3, 1987, resulting in the defendant's arrest. Penal Law § 60.27 (1) provides that "the court shall consider restitution to the victim of the crime and may require restitution as part of the sentence imposed upon a person convicted of an offense". However, the imposition of restitution was improper since the the Police Department, in this instance, was not considered a "victim" of a crime to whom restitution may be made (People v. Rowe, 152 A.D.2d 907, affd 75 N.Y.2d 948). We note that effective November 1, 1991, Penal Law § 60.27 has been amended to add subdivision (9), which now permits the payment of restitution to law enforcement agencies (L 1991, ch 545).

The defendant also contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant failed to raise the issue in the Supreme Court (see, People v. Whisby, 48 N.Y.2d 834 ; People v. Lieberman, 47 N.Y.2d 931; People v. Adams, 38 N.Y.2d 605). In any event, after consideration of the factors set forth in People v. Taranovich ( 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445) we find that the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see, People v. Thompson, 140 A.D.2d 652; People v Johnston, 111 A.D.2d 262; compare, People v. Mitchell, 106 A.D.2d 478). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 1991
177 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Woods

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN WOODS, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 25, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 611

Citing Cases

People v. Walker

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision of the sentence which directed…

People v. Moss

On appeal, the defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.…