Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

People v. Gotham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 7, 2001

284 A.D.2d 578; 725 N.Y.S.2d 235; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5982

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Kirk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Soprano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. O'Donnell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Meyer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Benjamin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Keck (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Roberge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Price (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Borowsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered August 29, 2000, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

*579In 1998, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated as a misdemeanor and criminal contempt in the first degree in full satisfaction of a seven-count indictment and was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years’ and five years’ probation, respectively. In August 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his probation by drinking alcohol, being convicted of an additional offense and being arrested two additional times for criminal contempt in the second degree. County Court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to two concurrent definite terms of 365 days in jail. Defendant appeals.

In light of defendant’s history of criminal conduct and inability to abide by the conditions of probation, we are unpersuaded by his assertion that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive (see, People v Snow, 273 AD2d 549; People v Hawke, 270 AD2d 646, 647). Moreover, our review of the record reveals no extraordinary circumstances to warrant a reduction of the sentence imposed in the interest of justice (see, People v McNeil, 268 AD2d 611, 612; People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 NY2d 872).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.