People v. Frankel

• Decision Date: 02 June 1997
• Citation: 658 N.Y.S.2d 1003,240 A.D.2d 431
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Max FRANKEL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 1003

658 N.Y.S.2d 1003

240 A.D.2d 431

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v.Max FRANKEL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division Second Department.

June 2, 1997.

Hillard Wiese, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General, New York City(Lawrence N. Gray, Arthur G. Weinstein, and Gilbert Epstein, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from two amended judgments of the County Court, Rockland County(Nelson, J.), both rendered September 8, 1993, revoking two sentences of probation previously imposed by the same court, both rendered April 26, 1988, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing sentences of imprisonment upon his previous convictions of grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (twelve counts), forgery in the second degree (four counts), and falsifying business records in the first degree (six counts), under IndictmentNo. 87-00152, and filing a false tax return under IndictmentNo. 87-00157.

ORDERED that the amended judgments are affirmed.

The People established that the defendant violated a condition of his probation by failing to make restitution (see, CPL 410.70[3];People v. Minard, 161 A.D.2d 607, 555 N.Y.S.2d 182;cf., CPL 420.10[5] ).The County Court therefore properly revoked the sentences of probation (see, People v. Holmes, 226 A.D.2d 1122, 642 N.Y.S.2d 133;People v. Ray, 105 A.D.2d 988, 482 N.Y.S.2d 133).

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

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see, CPL 65.10[2][g];cf., People v. DeFrancesco, 136 A.D.2d 560, 523 N.Y.S.2d 555).

BRACKEN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, PIZZUTO and K...