| People v Tippa |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 03066 [194 AD3d 856] |
| May 12, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph Tippa, Appellant. |
Thomas N.N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Jennifer Burton of counsel), for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M.Forman, J.), rendered October 15, 2019, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree andcriminal contempt in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, including adirection that the defendant pay restitution in the sum of $8,700.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the provision thereofdirecting the defendant to pay restitution in the sum of $8,700; as so modified, the judgment isaffirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for a hearing and anew determination as to the proper amount of restitution and the manner of payment thereof.
The defendant pleaded guilty to, inter alia, grand larceny in the third degree, admitting thathe stole four computers with a total value in excess of $3,000. The presentence report indicatedthat the defendant stole four computers with a total value of approximately $7,150. Atsentencing, the prosecutor represented that defense counsel was provided with "paperwork"showing that the total value of the stolen computers was the sum of $8,700. The County Courtaccepted that amount, and as part of the sentence imposed, directed that the defendant payrestitution in the sum of $8,700.
"Before a defendant may be directed to pay restitution, a hearing must be held if either: (1)the defendant objects to the amount of restitution and the record is insufficient to establish theproper amount; or (2) the defendant requests a hearing" (People v Morrishill, 127 AD3d 993, 994 [2015]; see PenalLaw § 60.27 [2]; People v Consalvo, 89 NY2d 140, 145-146 [1996]). Here,the defendant objected to the amount of restitution imposed by the County Court, and the recordwas insufficient to establish that the total value of the stolen computers was the sum of $8,700.Insofar as there is no indication in the record that the People submitted any documentation to thecourt for review showing the total value of the stolen computers, the court erred in relying uponthe prosecutor's mere conclusory assertion as to the total value of the stolen computers withoutconducting a hearing (see People v Consalvo, 89 NY2d at 145; People v Drinkwine, 142 AD3d1101, 1102 [2016]). Accordingly, so much of the judgment as directed the defendant to payrestitution in the sum of $8,700 must be vacated, and the matter remitted to the County Court,Dutchess County, for a hearing and a new determination as to the proper amount of restitutionand the manner of payment (see People v Denny, [*2]159AD3d 830, 831 [2018]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Chambers, J.P., Miller, Duffy,LaSalle and Wooten, JJ., concur.