People v. Abraham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Abraham

2017 NY Slip Op 3962, 150 A.D.3d 1021, 52 N.Y.S.3d 228

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

DecidedMay 17, 2017

Docket2014-09797

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3962 (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, 2017 NY Slip Op 3962, 150 A.D.3d 1021, 52 N.Y.S.3d 228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dwyer, J.), rendered May 15, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of his challenge to the hearing court’s suppression determination (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Sanchez, 122 AD3d 778, 778-779 [2014]; People v Kidd, 100 AD3d 779, 779 [2012]), and his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 9 [1989]).

Rivera, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Connolly, 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 (Dwyer, J.), rendered May 15, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of his challenge to the hearing court’s suppression determination (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; People v Sanchez, 122 AD3d 778, 778-779 [2014]; People v Kidd, 100 AD3d 779, 779 [2012]), and his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 9 [1989]).

Rivera, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3962, 150 A.D.3d 1021, 52 N.Y.S.3d 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-abraham-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack