Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

People v. Augustin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 20, 2001

286 A.D.2d 442; 729 N.Y.S.2d 900; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8070

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Pichardo-Ramirez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
People v. Grzywaczewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Sansone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Trias (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Kimbrough (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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 by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered March 27, 1998, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted assault in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to appeal from the original judgment. Thus, his contentions concerning the original judgment are not properly before this Court on his appeal from the amended judgment, which revoked the sentence of probation previously imposed and imposed a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction (see, CPL 450.30 [3]; People v Riddick, 269 AD2d 472; People v Moore, 261 AD2d 421).

The Supreme Court properly revoked the defendant’s sentence of probation. “Commission of an additional offense * * * after imposition of a sentence of probation * * * and *443prior to expiration or termination of the period of sentence, constitutes a ground for revocation of such sentence” (CPL 410.10 [2]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

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