People v. Dawn Maria C.

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 67 N.Y.2d 625, 499 N.Y.S.2d 663, 490 N.E.2d 530, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16722

Decision Date: 1/14/1986

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Dawn Maria C., 67 N.Y.2d 625, 499 N.Y.S.2d 663, 490 N.E.2d 530, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16722 (1986)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1986

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 130 decisions

130

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.111

N.Y.5

N.Y. Sup. Ct.4

NY4

Fulton Cty. Ct.1

Most recently cited by10

2026People v. Overstreet N.Y. App. Div.
2026People v. McGeachy N.Y. App. Div.
2026People v. Marcus T. N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Brenda WW. NY
2025People v. Hannah T. N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Hall N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Spencer N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Nathan N.Y. App. Div.
2025People v. Trimboli N.Y. App. Div.
2024People v. Cha-Narion D. N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 1 case

People v. Mackell

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Dawn Maria C., Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
David A. Wait, District Attorney (Donna J. Arnold of counsel), for appellant.
John L. McMahon for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Although no appeal lies from the Appellate Division order of reversal "as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” to review the intermediate appellate court’s exercise of its discretion in declaring defendant a youthful offender (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]), an appeal does lie to consider the narrow issue concerning the legality of that court’s corrective action (CPL 450.90 [2] [b]; People v Mackell, 40 NY2d 59). We find no illegality in the Appellate Division’s remittal to County Court for sentencing. In so concluding we do not read the Appellate Division’s statement in its decision that County Court should "fix a reasonable definite term of incarceration along with a probationary period which includes the necessary counseling” (105 AD2d, at p 336) as in any way limiting the County Court’s discretion to impose a sentence authorized by statute (CPL 720.20 [3]; Penal Law § 60.02 [2]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Hancock, Jr., taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.