PEOPLE v. KOSTYK (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two resentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew J. D'Emic, J.), both imposed January 12, 2021, upon his convictions of burglary in the second degree and criminal trespass in the second degree under Indictment No. 7935/12, and burglary in the second degree and criminal trespass in the second degree under Indictment No. 10635/12, upon his pleas of guilty, after remittitur from this Court for resentencing (see People v. Kostyk, 186 AD3d 744).

ORDERED that the resentences are affirmed.

“ ‘The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case’ ” (People v. Green, 205 AD3d 1051, 1052, quoting People v. Hesterbey, 121 AD3d 1127, 1128).  “In making such a determination, factors to be considered by the court include the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant's prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant's reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant's attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” (People v. Sutton, 184 AD3d 236, 246 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see CPL 720.20[1];  People v. Johnson, 217 AD3d 682;  People v. Ogando, 194 AD3d 963, 964;  People v. Turner, 174 AD3d 1123, 1126–1127).

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, VOUTSINAS and WAN, JJ., concur.