In re Latif E., 88 A.D.3d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Latif E., 88 A.D.3d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Naughton (nyappdiv, 2012-03-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Naughton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We decline to follow the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, in People v Butler ( 88 AD3d 470, 473 [2011]), in which that Court held that “where, in the normal course, the government seeks resentencing of a prior conviction and the sentence is vacated for failure to pronounce a term of PRS the resentencing date should be considered in determining whether the prior conviction meets the sequentiality requirement of the predicate felony offender statutes.” The holding in Butler was based principally upon an opinion authored by Chief Judge Lippman in People v Acevedo ( 17 NY3…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boyer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The Court expressly left open the question of “what effect a bona fide Sparber resentence” — i.e., one in which the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, rather than a defendant, seeks resentencing pursuant to Correction Law § 601-d and Penal Law § 70.85 — “should have for predicate felony purposes” (id.-, but see People v Butler, 88 AD3d 470, 473 [2011] [concluding that the Court “implicitly rejected” the position of the concurring judges, who would have held that predicate felony status is not affected by any postrelease resentencing]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Latif E., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 6, 2011.
88 A.D.3d 470
Published

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and instead adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent and imposing a term of probation. In light of the violent nature of the underlying offense and appellant’s poor school performance, this was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman and Román, JJ.