People v. Weinberg
| Decision Date | 13 March 1995 |
| Citation | 624 N.Y.S.2d 887,213 A.D.2d 506 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jay WEINBERG, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Kevin F. Casey, of counsel), for appellant.
Edward J. Kuriansky, Deputy Atty. Gen., New York City (Arthur G. Weinstein and Donald H. Zuckerman, of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), imposed March 31, 1993, which, after a hearing upon remittitur, fixed the amount of restitution.
ORDERED that the amended sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we discern no improvident exercise of the court's broad discretion in controlling the scope of cross-examination so as to prevent extensive inquiry into irrelevant or collateral areas (see, e.g., People v. McGriff, 201 A.D.2d 672, 607 N.Y.S.2d 980). Moreover, the court properly limited the scope of the hearing to a determination of the amount of restitution (see, Penal Law § 60.27[2], and the record amply supports the amount fixed by the court for which the defendant and his codefendants are jointly and severally liable (see, e.g., People v. Hodge, 176 A.D.2d 1234, 578 N.Y.S.2d 438; People v. Hall, 173 A.D.2d 729, 570 N.Y.S.2d 243). Furthermore, the court correctly declined to consider the defendant's ability to pay in determining the amount of restitution pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27(2) and in accordance with the terms of the order of remittitur (see, People v. Weinberg, 183 A.D.2d 930, 586 N.Y.S.2d 131) (cf., Penal Law § 65.10[2][g].
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2] or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Magrigor
...exercised its broad discretion in limiting the defendant's inquiry regarding an issue that had no relevance to the case (see, People v Weinberg, 213 A.D.2d 506; People v McGriff, supra, at 673; People v Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 246; cf., People v Levy, 186 A.D.2d 66, In addition, the defenda......
-
People v. Thorpe
...intended inquiry into an irrelevant issue that had no bearing on any material fact or question before the jury (see, People v. Weinberg, 213 A.D.2d 506, 624 N.Y.S.2d 887; People v. McGriff, supra, at 673, 607 N.Y.S.2d 980; People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 246, 597 N.Y.S.2d 975; cf., People......
-
People v. Emmi
...for the court, in ordering restitution in addition to imprisonment, to consider defendant's ability to pay (see, People v. Weinberg, 213 A.D.2d 506, 507, 624 N.Y.S.2d 887, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 970, 647 N.Y.S.2d 724, 670 N.E.2d 1356; Penal Law § 60.27; cf., Penal Law § 65.10[2][g] ). Based u......
- People v. Velasquez