People v. Albero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Albero

40 A.D.2d 689, 336 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3788

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 689 (People v. Albero) 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. Albero, 40 A.D.2d 689, 336 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 29, 1971, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed as to the sentence, on the law, and case remanded for resentencing. Defendant’s sentence was illegal in that the trial court failed to order a medical examination, thereby violating the mandatory terms of section 207 of the Mental Hygiene Law. In our opinion there was a failure to comply with sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which justifies a reversal (People v. Maranez, 39 A D 2d 589; People v. Batson, 39 A D 2d 586; People ex rel. Ali v. La Vallee, 36 A D 2d 140; People v. Sczerbaty, 37 A D 2d 428; see, e.g., People v. Di Vito, 39 A D 2d 968). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 29, 1971, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed as to the sentence, on the law, and case remanded for resentencing. Defendant’s sentence was illegal in that the trial court failed to order a medical examination, thereby violating the mandatory terms of section 207 of the Mental Hygiene Law. In our opinion there was a failure to comply with sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which justifies a reversal (People v. Maranez, 39 A D 2d 589; People v. Batson, 39 A D 2d 586; People ex rel. Ali v. La Vallee, 36 A D 2d 140; People v. Sczerbaty, 37 A D 2d 428; see, e.g., People v. Di Vito, 39 A D 2d 968). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 689, 336 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-albero-nyappdiv-1972.