From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Taylor

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 12, 2022
174 N.Y.S.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

2018–11640 Ind. No. 2621/15

10-12-2022

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Abanaya TAYLOR, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W.L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Denise Pavlides, and Melissa Wachs of counsel), for respondent.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W.L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Denise Pavlides, and Melissa Wachs of counsel), for respondent.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (John T. Hecht, J.), imposed August 28, 2018, upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, after remittitur from this Court for resentencing (see People v. Taylor, 163 A.D.3d 726, 76 N.Y.S.3d 840 ).

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case (see People v. Alleyne, 203 A.D.3d 732, 160 N.Y.S.3d 634 ; People v. Hesterbey, 121 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 994 N.Y.S.2d 421 ). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying youthful offender treatment to the defendant (see People v. Dhillon, 157 A.D.3d 900, 901, 66 N.Y.S.3d 911 ).

The resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

The defendant's contention that mandatory surcharges and fees imposed at sentencing (see Penal Law § 60.35[1][a] ) should be waived pursuant to CPL 420.35(2–a) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, as the record does not establish any of the grounds enumerated in the statute to waive such fees and charges, the defendant's contention is without merit (see CPL 420.35[2–a][a–c] ; People v. Attah, 203 A.D.3d 1063, 162 N.Y.S.3d 784 ).

DUFFY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, IANNACCI and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Taylor

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 12, 2022
174 N.Y.S.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

People v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Abanaya TAYLOR, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 12, 2022

Citations

174 N.Y.S.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Citing Cases

People v. Taylor

The defendant’s contention that the mandatory surcharges and fees levied at sentencing (see Penal Law §…

People v. Slide

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the County Court properly considered…