From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Worthington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 20, 1991
173 A.D.2d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 20, 1991

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.).


Ordered that the sentence is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof requiring the defendant to make restitution; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Inasmuch as restitution did not comprise part of the defendant's plea agreement (see, People v Cowan, 168 A.D.2d 509), and there is inadequate evidence in the record to support the sentencing court's imposition of restitution, we conclude that the portion of the sentence directing the payment of restitution should be deleted (see, Penal Law § 60.27; People v Smith, 168 A.D.2d 524).

We reject the defendant's remaining contentions. His challenge to the payment of the mandatory surcharge is academic in view of the foregoing determination (see, Penal Law § 60.35), and the sentencing court's denial of youthful offender treatment did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances presented (see, CPL 720.20 [a]). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Worthington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 20, 1991
173 A.D.2d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Worthington

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM WORTHINGTON…

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

Date published: May 20, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

People v. Moore

Nor did the court err in failing to conduct a hearing before imposing restitution (see, Penal Law § 60.27).…

People v. Geigel

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. We find no merit to the defendant's claim that the court improvidently…