| People v Spitzer |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05705 [130 AD3d 657] |
| July 1, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shaul Spitzer, Appellant. |
Gribetz & Loewenberg, PLLC, New City, N.Y. (Deborah WolikowLoewenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel),for respondent (no brief filed).
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the CountyCourt, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), imposed April 17, 2012, upon his conviction ofassault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty.
Ordered that the sentence is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to theCounty Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20 (1) requires "that there be a youthfuloffender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where thedefendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain" (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d497, 501 [2013]). Here, as the People correctly concede, the record does notdemonstrate that the County Court considered whether the defendant, who was 18 yearsold at the time he committed the crime of assault in the first degree, a class B violentfelony, should be treated as a youthful offender (see id. at 502-503; People v Stevens, 127 AD3d791 [2015]; People vOjomo, 126 AD3d 1011 [2015]; People v Ramirez, 115 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; People v Tyler, 110 AD3d745, 746 [2013]). Accordingly, the defendant's sentence must be reversed, and thematter remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for resentencing afterdetermining whether the defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender. Weexpress no opinion as to whether the County Court should afford youthful offender statusto the defendant. Eng, P.J., Skelos, Austin, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.