Opinion
04-28-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John C. BORASKY, Appellant.
Albert F. Lawrence, Greenfield Center, for appellant. Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.
Albert F. Lawrence, Greenfield Center, for appellant.
Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, ROSE, LYNCH and AARONS, JJ.
PETERS, P.J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered January 15, 2013, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree and was sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to pay restitution. Subsequently, defendant admitted to violating multiple conditions of his probation. Thereafter, County Court revoked defendant's probation and resentenced him to the agreed-upon prison term of 5 ½ years followed by three years of postrelease supervision and ordered that the balance of the monetary restitution imposed at the original sentence be reduced to a judgment. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the agreed-upon sentence was harsh and excessive and the record does not reflect any extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v. Fusco, 91 A.D.3d 985, 986, 935 N.Y.S.2d 735 [2012] ; People v. Kornell, 85 A.D.3d 1449, 1450, 926 N.Y.S.2d 191 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 860, 932 N.Y.S.2d 25, 956 N.E.2d 806 [2011] ). To the extent that defendant challenges the amount of restitution, we note that the restitution was imposed as part of the original conviction and sentence from which no appeal was taken (see People v. Coy, 279 A.D.2d 794, 794, 718 N.Y.S.2d 899 [2001] ; People v. Panek, 256 A.D.2d 1238, 1239, 683 N.Y.S.2d 453 [1998], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 856, 688 N.Y.S.2d 503, 710 N.E.2d 1102 [1999] ), and the "reimposition of the same restitution at resentencing does not, in our opinion, trigger a renewed right to a hearing" (People v. Stedge, 250 A.D.2d 880, 880, 673 N.Y.S.2d 228 [1998] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
LAHTINEN, ROSE, LYNCH and AARONS, JJ., concur.