People v. Nilsen, 129 A.D.3d 994 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · Go Syfert
People v. Nilsen, 129 A.D.3d 994 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Rosa (nyappdiv, 2020-03-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rosa
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
We therefore vacate the amended sentence imposing restitution ( see People v Nilsen , 129 AD3d 994, 995 [2d Dept 2015]; see also Feher , 165 AD3d at 1611).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Palmer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Under *1337 the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to vacate the provision of defendant’s sentence imposing restitution, thereby conforming the sentence imposed to the promise made to defendant in exchange for his guilty plea (see People v Nilsen, 129 AD3d 994, 995 [2015]; cf. People v Gregory, 140 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2016]; People v Roberts, 139 AD3d 1092, 1092 [2016]; People v Sheats, 138 AD3d 894, 894-895 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gregory
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to vacate the provision of his sentence imposing a fine, so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant in exchange for his plea of guilty (see People v Roberts, 139 AD3d 1092 [2016]; People v Sheats, 138 AD3d 894, 894-895 [2016]; People v Nilsen, 129 AD3d 994, 995 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Roberts
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to vacate the provision of the defendant’s sentence imposing a fine, so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant in exchange for his plea of guilty (see People v Nilsen, 129 AD3d 994, 995 [2015]; People v Thompson, 105 AD3d 1067 [2013]; People v Esquivel, 100 AD3d 652, 653 [2012]; People v Bruno, 73 AD3d 941, 942 [2010]; see also People v Cote, 265 AD2d 681 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sheats
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to vacate the provision of the de *895 fendant’s sentence directing him to make restitution and the two restitution judgment orders, so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant in exchange for his plea of guilty (see People v Nilsen, 129 AD3d 994, 995 [2015]; People v Thompson, 105 AD3d 1067 [2013]; People v Esquivel, 100 AD3d at 652-653 ; People v Bruno, 73 AD3d 941, 942 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Chris Nilsen, Appellant
2014-04236.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 17, 2015.
129 A.D.3d 994
Dillon, Balkin, Miller, Maltese.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of a resentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Toomey, J.), imposed March 13, 2014, as, upon his conviction of robbery in the third degree (two counts), and upon his plea of guilty, directed him to make restitution.

Ordered that the resentence is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the provision of the resentence directing the defendant to make restitution is vacated.

The defendant’s contention that the restitution component of his sentence should be vacated because the County Court did[*995] not indicate that the plea of guilty was negotiated with terms that included restitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Woods, 110 AD3d 748 [2013]; People v Jerome, 110 AD3d 739, 740 [2013]; People v Thompson, 105 AD3d 1067 [2013]). However, we reach the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice.

The People correctly concede that the County Court erred in imposing restitution, since there is no indication in the plea minutes that the defendant’s plea of guilty was negotiated with terms that included restitution. The sole relief requested by the defendant on appeal is modification of his resentence to vacate the provision directing him to make restitution, and the People consent to the resentence being so modified. Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to vacate the provision of the defendant’s resentence directing him to make restitution (see People v Thompson, 105 AD3d 1067 [2013]; People v Esquivel, 100 AD3d 652, 652-653 [2012]; People v Bruno, 73 AD3d 941, 942 [2010]).

Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.