Legal Opinion
People v. Dulanski
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 12, 1991PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed, in accordance with the following Memorandum: The Cattaraugus County District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Department are not "victims” within the meaning of Penal Law § 60.27 (1); therefore, the court erred by ordering defendant to make restitution to these agencies of the expenses incurred in extraditing defendant from California to face felony charges. The court does not have authority to sentence defendant to reimburse a law enforcement agency for public monies expended as part of its law enforcement operating costs…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. RoweNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. RoweAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- People v. PurcellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- People v. PfaudlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
3Cited by6 opinions
- City of New York v. College Point Sports Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- People v. BarnettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- People v. WhiteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- CONTI, MICHAEL D., PEOPLE vAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. ContiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.