# People v. Brown & Ross International Distributors, Inc.

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · June 11, 1987 · 131 A.D.2d 960

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5897179

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York v. Brown and Ross International Distributors, Inc.
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** June 11, 1987
- **Citations:** 131 A.D.2d 960; 516 N.Y.S.2d 541; 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48369
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Casey
- **Judges:** Casey
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5897179

## Opinion text

Casey, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Intemann, Jr., J.) rendered June 4, 1986, convicting defendant upon its plea of guilty of the crime of unlawful use of secret scientific material.
Defendant, through its president and vice-president, waived indictment and entered a plea to a superior court information. At the time, defendant was advised by County Court that "in all probability in a plea of guilty * * * the court would sentence [defendant] to pay a fine” not to exceed $50,000. Defendant was sentenced to pay a fine in that amount. However, no finding as to the amount of defendant’s gain from the crime was made by the court at the time of sentencing, nor was a hearing held on the issue prior to sentencing.
On this appeal, defendant complains, and the prosecution agrees, that there was no compliance with the provisions of Penal Law § 80.10 (1) (a) and (e), and where, as here, the fine imposed exceeded $10,000, there must be compliance with Penal Law § 80.00 (3) (see, Penal Law § 80.10 [3]) requiring a hearing to determine the amount of defendant’s gain. Defendant therefore requests, and the prosecution agrees, that the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court for an appropriate hearing (see, People v Gustafson, 101 AD2d 920 ).
Judgment reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Schenectady County for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5897179. Public record. Not legal advice.