From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ruz

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 14, 1988
70 N.Y.2d 942 (N.Y. 1988)

Opinion

Argued January 5, 1988

Decided January 14, 1988

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, David Stadtmauer, J.

Elizabeth J. Vila, Philip L. Weinstein and Helen A. Marino for appellant.

Paul T. Gentile, District Attorney (David K. Bertan and Billie Manning of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant acknowledges that the sentencing court had statutory power to impose the surcharge mandated by Penal Law § 60.35 (see by contrast, People v David, 65 N.Y.2d 809, 810; People v Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152, 156). However, he now maintains for the first time that the surcharge was unconstitutional as applied to him, in that it violated the ex post facto prohibition contained in the Federal Constitution (US Const, art I, § 10 [cl 1]). By not bringing this issue to the attention of the court at the time of sentence, defendant failed to preserve it for our review (People v Ingram, 67 N.Y.2d 897; People v Lemon, 62 N.Y.2d 745).

Defendant's additional constitutional challenges to the statute are similarly unpreserved (see also, People v Barnes, 62 N.Y.2d 702).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Ruz

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 14, 1988
70 N.Y.2d 942 (N.Y. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Ruz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS RUZ, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 14, 1988

Citations

70 N.Y.2d 942 (N.Y. 1988)
524 N.Y.S.2d 668
519 N.E.2d 614

Citing Cases

Shahumyan v. Donelli

The New York courts have consistently held that, in order to preserve challenges to a sentence, defense…

Rivera v. Miller

New York courts have routinely held that the failure to make a contemporaneous objection at sentencing waives…