People v. Prihett, 279 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
People v. Prihett, 279 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Swart (nyappdiv, 2005-07-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" People v. Swart
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
As this Court has previously held, “given the mandatory nature of the surcharge, a defendant need not be advised, prior to the entry of his or her plea, that it is part of the sentence” (People v Neu, 1 AD3d 798, 798 [2003]; see People v Prihett, 279 AD2d 335 [2001]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." People v. Bonner
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Moreover, imposition of a mandatory surcharge does not warrant setting aside defendant’s sentence (see People v Neu, 1 AD3d 798, 798 [2003]; see also People v Prihett, 279 AD2d 335, 335 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Dwayne Prihett
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 16, 2001.
279 A.D.2d 335
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 464
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered May 19, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, and imposing the mandatory surcharge, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court’s imposition of the mandatory surcharge (Penal Law § 60.35) without mentioning such surcharge during the plea colloquy constituted a violation of his plea bargain is unpreserved as a result of defendant’s failure to move to withdraw his plea on this ground or to object to the surcharge, and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no indication in the record that defendant’s guilty plea was made in reliance on a promise that the surcharge would not be imposed. We also note that the surcharge, unlike a fine, is mandatory (CPL 420.35 [2]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.