People v. Cagle

Martoche and Pine, JJ. (dissenting).

We respectfully dissent. “It is well settled that where the language of a statute ‘is clear and unambiguous, [courts] should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used’ ” (Buchbinder Tunick & Co. v Tax Appeals Trib. of City of N.Y., 100 NY2d 389, 393 [2003], quoting Matter of New York Yankees Partnership v O'Cleireacain, 83 NY2d 550, 555 [1994]; see Matter of Orens v *737Novello, 99 NY2d 180, 185 [2002]). “ ‘It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation, and when words have a definite and precise meaning, to go…