§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Jose Rodriguez, Appellant.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Paulin

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5544 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 137 times
    Holding that although drug offenders who have committed parole violations are not statutorily ineligible for resentencing: “[i]t may be, of course, that many parole violators have shown by their conduct that they do not deserve relief from their sentences. .... if that is the case, courts can deny their resentencing applications”

  2. People v. Ramirez

    89 N.Y.2d 444 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 174 times
    Upholding consecutive robbery sentences where the defendant forcibly took the belongings of two security guards in a hotel parking lot

  3. People v. Gomberg

    38 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 290 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Gomberg we required only that the court be "satisfied" that the waiver was informed (38 NY2d at 313); the actual task of informing the defendant as to the conflict, we indicated, was the ethical and representational obligation of counsel (id. at 314).

  4. People v. Utsey

    7 N.Y.3d 398 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 119 times
    Noting that the statute includes "ameliorative provisions designed to afford distinct sentencing relief to defendants who committed their crimes prior to its effective date"

  5. In Matter of Murray v. Goord

    1 N.Y.3d 29 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 88 times
    Finding DOCCS' only option is to comply with the last order of commitment

  6. People v. Vaughan

    62 A.D.3d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 19 times

    March 24, 2009. APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vincent M. Del Giudice, J.), entered October 17, 2006. The order denied defendant's motion pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738, § 23) to (a) vacate a sentence of that court (Sheldon Greenberg, J.), imposed May 22, 1990 upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and assault in the

  7. People v. Steven Acevedo

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3472 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 15 times
    In People v Acevedo (14 NY3d 828 [2010]), we held that neither circumstance is present when a court imposes a determinate sentence under the 2004 DLRA. Such resentencing constitutes "alteration of the existing sentence as authorized by law" (id. at 831), rather than imposition of a new sentence or of an additional term of imprisonment.

  8. People v. Norris

    90 A.D.3d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    2011-12-13 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tyrell NORRIS, appellant. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel; Emma Brown–Bernstein on the brief), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Maria Park of counsel), for respondent. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel; Emma Brown–Bernstein on the brief), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas

  9. People v. Rodriguez

    96 A.D.3d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    2012-06-27 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jose RODRIGUEZ, appellant. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ellen Fried of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ellen Fried of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent. Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme

  10. Matter of Mlodozeniec v. Worthington Corp.

    9 A.D.2d 21 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)   Cited 30 times

    August 13, 1959. Appeal from the Workmen's Compensation Board. John M. Cullen for Special Disability Fund, appellant. Benedict T. Mangano for Worthington Corporation, appellant. Tiernan Borowiec for claimant-respondent. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General ( Gilbert M. Landy and Roy Wiedersum of counsel), for Workmen's Compensation Board, respondent. GIBSON, J. The appeal is from an award of compensation in a silicosis case and presents the question whether the amendment to section 44-a Work. Comp