People v. DavisPeople v. Davis
The court properly recognized the degree of discretion it possessed (compare People v Arana, 32 AD3d 305 [2006]), and providently exercised its discretion when it determined that substantial justice dictated that defendant‘s resentencing application should be denied (see e.g. People v Vasquez, 41 AD3d 111 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 870 [2007]). In considering such an application, the court is vested with a level of discretion to consider “any facts or circumstances relevant to the imposition of a new sentence which are submitted by such person or the people and may, in addition, consider the institutional record of confinement of such person” (L 2005, ch 643, § 1). The court properly considered, among other things, reliable information as to the large amount of cocaine that defendant possessed at the time of his arrest, which would constitute a class A-I felony even under the present law. We have considered and rejected defendant‘s remaining claims, including his constitutional argument (see People v Alea, 46 AD3d 398 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1030 [2008]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 30659(U).]