People v. Abraham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Abraham

279 A.D.2d 633, 719 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 863

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 633 (People v. Abraham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Abraham, 279 A.D.2d 633, 719 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gorges, J.), rendered April 29, 1998, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the Supreme Court erred when it tried the case to its conclusion in his absence. However, the defendant failed to return to court, although he was warned of [634]*634the consequences of such a failure, and he had been permitted to delay or adjourn the proceedings on several prior occasions. The court, upon inquiry into and consideration of all appropriate factors, providently exercised its discretion in trying the defendant in absentia (see, People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436; People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136; People v Cajigas, 240 AD2d 755; People v Taylor, 233 AD2d 534). Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gorges, J.), rendered April 29, 1998, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the Supreme Court erred when it tried the case to its conclusion in his absence. However, the defendant failed to return to court, although he was warned of [634]*634the consequences of such a failure, and he had been permitted to delay or adjourn the proceedings on several prior occasions. The court, upon inquiry into and consideration of all appropriate factors, providently exercised its discretion in trying the defendant in absentia (see, People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436; People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136; People v Cajigas, 240 AD2d 755; People v Taylor, 233 AD2d 534). Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 633, 719 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-abraham-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack