People v. Senecal
| Decision Date | 20 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | 16191. |
| Citation | 31 A.D.3d 980,2006 NY Slip Op 05848,817 N.Y.S.2d 923 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GERARD SENECAL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ryan, J.), entered May 10, 2005 in Clinton County, which directed defendant to pay restitution.
Defendant, as a result of his involvement in a burglary of a dwelling with two codefendants, pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree in exchange for, among other things, a minimum sentence and a period of postrelease supervision. At sentencing, a restitution hearing was ordered. After the hearing was concluded, defendant was directed to pay restitution in the amount of $33,761.66, and was held jointly and severally liable for such amount with one of his codefendants.* Defendant appeals from the restitution order.
We do not find that the restitution order is against the weight of the evidence. Defendant takes issue with two items encompassed by the order, specifically, the amount of currency taken and the cost of repairing damage to the floor. A review of the transcript of the restitution hearing discloses that one of the victims gave detailed testimony concerning the amount of United States and Canadian currency taken from the safe, which she checked approximately one week before the break-in, as well as the cost of repairing damage done to the house, and more particularly the floor, caused during the break-in. Such testimony was adequate to establish the amount of the losses suffered (see People v Periard, 15 AD3d 693, 694 [2005]).
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
* Defendant's nephew, the other codefendant, remained at large at the time the restitution order was entered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ford
...). County Court found the testimony credible, and it adequately established the amount of her losses ( see People v. Senecal, 31 A.D.3d 980, 980-981, 817 N.Y.S.2d 923 [2006]; People v. Periard, 15 A.D.3d 693, 694, 788 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2005] ). Defendant next contends that the award should be r......
-
People v. Stevens
...and May 2010 totaled approximately $1,000 for each of them—was sufficient to establish the loss incurred ( see People v. Senecal, 31 A.D.3d 980, 980–981, 817 N.Y.S.2d 923 [2006]; People v. Periard, 15 A.D.3d 693, 694, 788 N.Y.S.2d 725 [2005] ). We also find that the spreadsheet compiled by ......
-
People v. Lavilla
...( see People v. Howell, 46 A.D.3d 1464, 847 N.Y.S.2d 811, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 841, 859 N.Y.S.2d 400, 889 N.E.2d 87; People v. Senecal, 31 A.D.3d 980, 817 N.Y.S.2d 923; People v. Periard, 15 A.D.3d 693, 788 N.Y.S.2d 725). In addition, the amount of restitution was supported by the business ......
- People v. Rowland