CoCt No. 58
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Carl Amorosi,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 42
April 26, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Mark J. Mahoney, for appellant.
Steven Meyer, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
Defendant was convicted, after a bench trial in Town Court, of petit
larceny, for stealing more than $6,500 from his employer. After
informing him that he faced a maximum jail term of one year and a
thousand dollar fine, the Town Justice sentenced defendant to three
years' probation. As a condition of his sentence, the court ordered
defendant to make restitution to his employer within two and one-half
years. Defendant was given a written copy of his conditions of
probation, including full restitution, which he signed. Reiterating
that restitution was required, the court additionally instructed
defendant to refrain from using drugs or alcohol and from violating
the law; to submit to random chemical testing upon the request of the
Probation Department; and to report to a probation officer as
directed.
Two and one-half years later, defendant's probation officer sought a
declaration of delinquency. At the revocation hearing before the same
Town Justice, the probation officer testified that defendant had
failed to pay any restitution and indeed maintained that he had been
wrongly accused. Defendant nonetheless offered to pay $4000, with the
balance to be paid in one year, but complained that the Trial Judge
had not allowed him to put on a witness who would testify that he was
not guilty. The court responded: "I'm not interested in the money any
more, I gave you the opportunity to take care of this matter, I gave
you more than ample time to take care of this matter, the probation
officer warned you what could happen if you did not take care of this.
SNIPPETS:
Steven Meyer, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted, after a bench trial in Town Court, of petit larceny, for stealing
After informing him that he faced a maximum jail term of one year and a thousand dollar fine,
As a condition of his sentence, the court ordered defendant to make restitution to his
the court additionally instructed defendant to refrain from using drugs or alcohol and from
At the revocation hearing before the same Town Justice, the probation officer testified that
Defendant nonetheless offered to pay $4000, with the balance to be paid in one year, but
"I'm not interested in the money any more, I gave you the opportunity to take care of this
On appeal to County Court, defendant contended that CPL 420.10, and were applicable to his
County Court concluded that payment of restitution was a condition of defendant's sentence of
We now affirm.
At its core, defendant's claim is that, although he committed a violation of probation for
The dual goals of the restitution statute are to insure that victims will be made whole and
In 1984, the Legislature underscored the importance of restitution as an alternative to
While it is the policy of the State that restitution should where practicable be made to
Town Court required defendant to pay restitution within two and one-half years of sentencing;
"Where the court imposes a fine, restitution or reparation, the sentence may provide that if
When the court directs that the defendant be imprisoned until the fine, restitution or
"Where the fine, restitution or reparation is imposed for a misdemeanor, the period may not
True, defendant could have applied for resentencing under CPL 420.10.
That provision allows a court, when it is satisfied that a defendant is unable to pay
|
