People v. Golgoski, 40 A.D.3d 1138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Golgoski, 40 A.D.3d 1138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. White (John) (nyappterm, 2018-11-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White (John)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2018 · confidence medium
Although defendant's challenge to the restitution is unpreserved for our review due to his failure to object to the imposition of restitution, contest the amount thereof or request a hearing at [*2] the time of sentencing ( see People v Callahan , 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Isaacs , 71 AD3d 1161, 1161 [2010]; People v Golgoski , 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]), we find it appropriate to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see People v Nesbitt , 144 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2016]; People v Lyman , 119 AD3d 968 , 970 [2014]; People v Lewis , 89 AD3d 148…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sparbanie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Accordingly, defendant’s argument is not preserved for our review (see People v Nickel, 97 AD3d 983 , 984 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1013 [2013]; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sparbanie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Accordingly, defendant’s argument is not preserved for our review (see People v Nickel, 97 AD3d 983 , 984 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1013 [2013]; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fisher
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Finally, defendant’s contention that County Court erred in failing to conduct a restitution hearing is unpreserved for our review (see People v Horne, 97 NY2d 404 , 414 n 3 [2002]; People v Francis, 82 AD3d 1263 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 795 [2011]; People v Waugh, 52 AD3d 853, 856 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 796 [2008]; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]), and we have considered the sentence imposed by County Court and find it to be neither harsh nor excessive.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Faranda
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
As for restitution, given the content of the written plea agreement, where defendant acknowledged that restitution in the specified amount of $105,000 would be imposed at sentencing, his agreement to that amount during the plea allocution and his lack of any objection, a restitution hearing was not required (see Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]; People v Drew, 16 AD3d 840, 841 [2005]; cf. People v Peters, 299 AD2d 663, 664 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
In any event, the written summary detailing the bad checks that defendant passed and the associated bank fees was sufficient to support the amount of restitution awarded (see People v Thomas, 71 AD3d at 1232 ; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thomas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
In any event, the medical bills and insurance documentation attached to the victim impact statement adequately support the amount of restitution ordered, thus obviating the need for a hearing (see People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407, 411 [1998]; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]; People v Drew, 16 AD3d 840, 841 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Favreau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
In any event, contrary to defendant’s contention, a restitution hearing was not required here as the record evidence of the property stolen and its corresponding value supports the amount of restitution ordered (see People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]; People v Drew, 16 AD3d 840, 841 [2005]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rogers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Consequently, she is foreclosed from asserting this claim as well (see People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Giovanni
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Therefore, inasmuch as defendant failed to challenge County Court’s restitution determination or request a hearing on the issue, her current argument is unpreserved and we decline to reverse said determination in the interest of justice (see People v Stephens, 51 AD3d 1225 [2008]; People v Golgoski, 40 AD3d 1138, 1138 [2007]; People v Williams, 28 AD3d 1005, 1011 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 819 [2006]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Glen Golgoski
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 3, 2007.
40 A.D.3d 1138
Spain.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered March 22, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.

In satisfaction of an indictment also charging second degree burglary, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. Pursuant to the agreement, he was thereafter sentenced as an admitted predicate felon to a prison term of 2 to 4 years and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,950. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Initially, we are not persuaded by defendant’s claim that his sentence was harsh and excessive. Given defendant’s extensive criminal history and his record of squandering sentencing leniency and opportunities to overcome his substance abuse problems, we find neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the lawful, negotiated sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Hammond, 35 AD3d 905, 907 [2006]).

Next, defendant’s assertion that County Court erred by failing to conduct a restitution hearing is unpreserved given that he never disputed the amount or propriety of restitution nor requested such a hearing during sentencing (see People v Snyder, 38 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2007]; People v Williams, 28 AD3d 1005, 1011 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 819 [2006]; People v Melino, 16 AD3d 908, 911 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 791 [2005]; People v Drew, 16 AD3d 840, 841 [2005]; see also People v Horne, 97 NY2d 404, 414, n 3 [2002]). In any event, a restitution hearing was not required as the amount of restitution ordered was adequately supported in the record in the form of an itemized list prepared by the police setting forth the unrecovered stolen property and the corresponding values (see Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; People v Drew, supra at 841; see also People v Tzitzikalakis, 8 NY3d 217, 221 [2007]; People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407, 410-411[*1139] [1998]; cf. People v Consalvo, 89 NY2d 140, 144-146 [1996]; People v Peters, 299 AD2d 663, 664 [2002]).

Peters, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.