People v. Pedraza, 485 N.E.2d 237 (NY 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Pedraza, 485 N.E.2d 237 (NY 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Bussey (nyappdiv, 2009-11-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bussey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The defendant failed to establish extraordinary circumstances that would warrant disturbing the sentence imposed (see People v Pedraza, 66 NY2d 626, 627 [1985]; People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305-306 [1981]; People v Masters, 36 AD3d 959, 960 [2007]; People v Torres, 150 AD2d 406 [1989]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Garrasi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed (see People v Pedraza, 66 NY2d 626, 627 [1985]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lampkin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed (see People v Pedraza, 66 NY2d 626, 627 [1985]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Bonner
N.Y. App. Div. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
Finally, in view of the court’s familiarity with all of the pertinent sentencing factors and its proper exercise of sound discretion, we discern no basis for disturbing the sentence imposed (see, e.g., People v Battease, supra; see generally, People v Pedraza, 66 NY2d 626 ; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Armando Pedraza, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 8, 1985.
485 N.E.2d 237
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Jonathan H. Oberman and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., Mario Merola, District Attorney (Michael J. Eng and Billie Manning of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed. It is clear from this record that the sentencing court did consider "the nature and circumstances of the crime and * * * the history and character of the defendant” (Penal Law § 70.02 [2] [c] [i]), correctly including whether, in view of defendant’s physical condition, a sentence of imprisonment would be "unduly harsh”. Thus, it cannot be said that the court failed to exercise its discretion or abused that discretion as a matter of law.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone.