People v. Stubbs, 281 A.D.2d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Stubbs, 281 A.D.2d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Ramsundar (nyappdiv, 2016-04-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ramsundar
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]), and the amount of restitution was not excessive (see People v Stubbs, 281 AD2d 498, 499 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ward
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Thus, a hearing must be held if the record does not contain sufficient facts or if the defendant requests a hearing (see People v Charles, 309 AD2d 873, 874 [2003]; People v Stubbs, 281 AD2d 498, 498 [2001]; People v Lambert, 221 AD2d 1015, 1015 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ward
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Thus, a hearing must be held if the record does not contain sufficient facts or if the defendant requests a hearing (see People v Charles, 309 AD2d 873, 874 [2003]; People v Stubbs, 281 AD2d 498, 498 [2001]; People v Lambert, 221 AD2d 1015, 1015 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Price
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The presentence report provided the trial court with a sufficient evidentiary basis to determine the amount of the victims’ out-of-pocket losses, and a hearing was not required under these circumstances (see Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407, 411 [1998]; People v Charles, 309 AD2d 873, 874 [2003]; People v Stubbs, 281 AD2d 498, 499 [2001]; cf. People v Jackson, 261 AD2d 636 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Baez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Moreover, the defendant’s contention that the court improperly failed to conduct a hearing to determine the amount of restitution is also unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Passalacqua, 43 AD3d 964 [2007]; People v Allen, 305 AD2d 421 [2003]) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Charles, 309 AD2d 873, 874 [2003]; People v Stubbs, 281 AD2d 498, 499 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Aaron Stubbs
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 12, 2001.
281 A.D.2d 498
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the de[*499] fendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered February 11, 1999, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the defendant did not request a hearing to fix the amount of restitution and the record contained sufficient evidence to support a finding as to the out-of-pocket loss he caused, the County Court properly fixed the amount of restitution without holding a hearing (see, People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407). The amount of restitution was not excessive because “the ordinary meaning of ‘restitution’ is restoring someone to a position he occupied before a particular event” (Hughey v United States, 495 US 411, 416; see also, People v Purcell, 161 AD2d 812).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.