5707. PEOPLE, res, v. VINCENT BARONE, def-ap — 5708PEOPLE, res, v. V. REDDY KANCHARLA, defap — Lankler & Carragher, LLP, New York (Andrew M. Lankler of counsel), for Vincent Barone, ap — Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, P.C., New York (Paul Shechtman of counsel), for V. Reddy Kancharla, ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Amyjane Rettew of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered April 7, 2010, convicting defendant Vincent Barone, after a jury trial, of enterprise corruption, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, two counts of scheme to defraud in the first degree and nine counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 5 1/3 to 16 years, modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the conviction for enterprise corruption and, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of modifying the remaining sentences to run concurrently, thereby reducing the aggregate term to 16 months to 4 years, and otherwise affirmed. Judgment, same court and Justice, rendered May 26, 2010, convicting defendant V. Reddy Kancharla, after a jury trial, of enterprise corruption, two counts of scheme to defraud in the first degree, nine counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and three counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 7 to 21 years, modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the convictions for enterprise corruption and offering a false instrument for filing under counts 12 and 13 as originally numbered in the indictment, and, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of modifying the remaining sentences to run concurrently, thereby reducing the aggregate term to 16 months to 4 years, and otherwise affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
We exercise our discretion in the interest of justice to modify defendants’ sentences so that the sentences for the remaining counts run concurrently. Pursuant to CPL 470.15(6)(b), this Court has “broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances,” even with respect to an otherwise legal sentence (see People v. Delgado, 80 NY2d 780, 783 [1992]). This power may be exercised in the interest of justice and without deference to the sentencing court (id.) Where the court deems an otherwise legal sentence to be excessive, it may “substitute [its] own discretion even where a trial court has not abused its discretion” (People v. Edwards, 37 AD3d 289, 290 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 843, 840 [2007], citing People v. Rosenthal, 305 AD2d 327, 329 [1st Dept 2003]).
