People v. Ormsby, 89 A.D.3d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ormsby, 89 A.D.3d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Ward (nyappdiv, 2016-05-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ward
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Accordingly, because Supreme Court’s bench decision was not reduced to the required written order, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s appeal, and the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for issuance of such an order (see People v Walker-Llanos, 92 AD3d 974, 974 [2012]; People v Civitello, 89 AD3d 1244, 1244 [2011]; People v Buckery, 84 AD3d at 1589 ; People v Peck, 46 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Barnett
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
As County Court’s bench decision was not reduced to the required written order, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s appeal and the matter must be remitted to County Court for issuance of such an order (see People v Walker-Llanos, 92 AD3d 974, 974 [2012]; People v Civitello, 89 AD3d 1244, 1244 [2011]; People v Buckery, 84 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2011]; People v Peck, 46 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Barnett
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
As County Court’s bench decision was not reduced to the required written order, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s appeal and the matter must be remitted to County Court for issuance of such an order (see People v Walker-Llanos, 92 AD3d 974, 974 [2012]; People v Civitello, 89 AD3d 1244, 1244 [2011]; People v Buckery, 84 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2011]; People v Peck, 46 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Finally, while defendant’s contention that his sentence is harsh and excessive is also precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Sherman, 91 AD3d 982, 983 [2012]), his contention that the sentence is illegal is not (see People v Ormsby, 89 AD3d 1244, 1244 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Joseph G. Ormsby
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 10, 2011.
89 A.D.3d 1244
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

[*1245] Defendant contends that his sentence is illegal because he should have been sentenced to two years of postrelease supervision instead of three years. Preliminarily, we note that defendant’s challenge to the legality of the sentence is not precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Greathouse, 62 AD3d 1212, 1213 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 744 [2009]; People v Robertson, 46 AD3d 928, 929 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 844 [2008]). Turning to the merits, Penal Law § 70.45 (2) (b) provides that the period of postrelease supervision imposed upon a defendant convicted of a class B felony under Penal Law § 70.70 and sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment “shall be not less than one year nor more than two years.” Defendant here was sentenced under Penal Law § 70.70 (2) (a) (i) and received a period of postrelease supervision of three years, which the People concede was error. Therefore, the judgment must be modified accordingly (see People v Robertson, 46 AD3d at 929; People v Brill, 42 AD3d 823, 823 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 960 [2007]).

Spain, J.R, Malone Jr., Kavanagh, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing so much thereof as imposed upon defendant a three-year period of postrelease supervision; sentence vacated to said extent and a two-year period of postrelease supervision is imposed; and, as so modified, affirmed.