PEOPLE v. HAYWARD (2006)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Sharon R. HAYWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: July 07, 2006

PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., KEHOE, GORSKI, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ.

Gary A. Horton, Public Defender, Batavia (Bridget L. Field of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (Kevin T. Finnell of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Defendant was convicted upon her plea of guilty of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10[1] ) and now challenges the amount of restitution ordered by County Court. The record establishes that a hearing to determine the amount of restitution was conducted by a referee and that, when the People asked the court to order the amount recommended in the Referee's report, defendant did not object to the amount. We thus conclude that defendant's present challenge to the amount of restitution ordered is not properly before us (see People v. Melino, 16 A.D.3d 908, 911, 791 N.Y.S.2d 718, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 791, 801 N.Y.S.2d 812, 835 N.E.2d 672).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network