Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Cordato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 9, 2011Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcCarthy, J.

We agree with the majority on all aspects of this case except the sentence. The determination of what constitutes an appropriate sentence lies within the trial court’s sound discretion (see People v Minor, 45 AD3d 885, 886 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 768 [2008]). Although this Court has the authority to modify, “as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice,” a legal sentence that is “unduly harsh or severe” (CPL 470.15 [6] [b]), we exercise that discretion sparingly. It is not our role to substitute the sentence that we would have imposed had that been our obligation in the first…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. LanfairAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  2. People v. SanchezNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. People v. ElliotAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  4. People v. MaggioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  5. People v. SomervilleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API