People v. Severino, 63 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978). · Go Syfert
People v. Severino, 63 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People ex rel. Ellis v. Imperati (nyappdiv, 2024-04-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" People ex rel. Ellis v. Imperati
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
"Stated in another way, the rule is that the construction to be adopted is the one which will not cause objectionable results, or cause inconvenience, hardship, injustice, mischief or absurdity" ( Eckel v Hassan , 61 AD2d at 18 ; see People v Severino , 91 Misc 2d 898, 900 [Sup Ct, Putnam County], affd 63 AD2d 1010 ).
discussed Cited "see" Mishaan v. 1035 Fifth Avenue Corp.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Owners Corp., 301 AD2d 527, 528 [2d Dept 2003]; Matter of Schmidt [Magnetic Head Corp.], 97 AD2d 244, 252 [2d Dept 1983].) “In considering whether to [confirm or] set aside an election, the court must determine whether improprieties produced a result different from what it otherwise ‘would have been’ or whether ‘an inequitable result has been thereby produced[.]’ [Matter of] Goldfield Corp. v General Host Corp., 29 NY2d [264,] 271 [(1971)].” (Matter of Schapira v Grunberg, 12 Misc 3d 1195[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 51585 [U], *4-5 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2006]; see Matter of Faraldo v Stan…
cited Cited "see" Azzi v. Ryan
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
(Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, § 618; see Matter of Faraldo v Standardbred Owners Assn., 63 AD2d 1010 .) Under the circumstances presented here, fair play and justice require notice.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jackson v. First District Dental Society
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under the circumstances presented, we find that judicial intervention in respondent’s " ' "internal affairs” ’ ”, under N-PCL 618, is warranted (Nyitray v New York Athletic Club, 195 AD2d 291 ; see also, Matter of Faraldo v Standardbred Owners Assn., 63 AD2d 1010, 1011 ).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Manlio Severino
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 14, 1978.
63 A.D.2d 1010
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, rendered November 9, 1977, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and grand larceny in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Defendant was the business manager of the Kent Nursing Home, which was owned by his wife and son. Defendant pleaded guilty to having filed a fraudulent application for Medicaid reimbursement by listing certain expenditures as having been incurred in connection with the furnishing of patient care, when in fact the expenditures had not been so incurred. A hearing was held to determine the precise amount of the overpayment which resulted from the fraudulent entries so that an appropriate fine could be imposed (see Penal Law, § 80.00; CPL 400.30). The proof adduced thereat showed an overpayment to the Kent Nursing Home of $63,384.36. The novel question present on this appeal is whether that amount can be deemed to be the defendant’s gain within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 80.00 of the Penal Law, as that provision read prior to September 1, 1977, the effective date of its amendment (see L 1977, ch 352). That subdivision provided, in pertinent part, that "a fine for a felony shall be a sentence to pay an amount, fixed by the court, not exceeding double the amount of the defendant’s gain from the commission of the crime” (emphasis supplied). We agree with the decision at Criminal Term that, as a matter of statutory construction and public policy, a gain to a third party of the defendant’s choice constitutes "the defendant’s gain” under the statute (see People v Severino, 91 Mise 2d 898). This result is especially warranted where, as here, the defendant has close ties to the one who has received the benefit. We have considered the appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Rabin and Cohalan, JJ., concur. [91 Misc 2d 898.]