Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. ANONYMOUS, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), entered on or about September 16, 2005, which denied defendant's motion to be resentenced, unanimously affirmed.
In 1997, defendant was convicted of conspiracy in the first degree (Penal Law § 105.17). Although the conspiracy related to class A drug felonies, the court properly denied his motion because resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act is only available to those persons who were convicted of offenses defined in article 220 of the Penal Law (see L. 2004, ch. 738, § 23).
While Penal Law § 5.00 provides that Penal Law provisions “must be construed according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of the law,” a court has no power to rewrite a statute, or ignore an essential part of it to meet the circumstances of a particular case (see People v. Herskowitz, 80 Misc.2d 693, 695, 364 N.Y.S.2d 350 [1975], affd. 51 A.D.2d 1047, 382 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1976], affd. 41 N.Y.2d 1094, 396 N.Y.S.2d 356, 364 N.E.2d 1127 [1977] ). “ [C]ourts are obliged to interpret a statute to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, and when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be construed so as to give effect to the plain meaning of [the] words used.” (People v. Finnegan, 85 N.Y.2d 53, 58, 623 N.Y.S.2d 546, 647 N.E.2d 758 [1995], cert. denied 516 U.S. 919, 116 S.Ct. 311, 133 L.Ed.2d 214 [1995][internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ).
“The failure of the Legislature to include a matter within a particular statute is an indication that its exclusion was intended.” (People v. Tychanski, 78 N.Y.2d 909, 911, 573 N.Y.S.2d 454, 577 N.E.2d 1046 [1991] [citations omitted] ). If the Legislature had intended to include conspiracy to commit drug offenses, it could have inserted the necessary language, and its failure to do so is presumed to be intentional (see People v. Pinkoski, 300 A.D.2d 834, 836-837, 752 N.Y.S.2d 421 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 631, 760 N.Y.S.2d 113, 790 N.E.2d 287 [2003] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: September 27, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)