People v. Anthony D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Anthony D.

51 A.D.2d 750, 379 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11287

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 750 (People v. Anthony D.) 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. Anthony D., 51 A.D.2d 750, 379 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal bydefendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 18, 1974, adjudicating him a youthful offender, after his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the third degree, and imposing sentence and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, made June 5, 1975, which denied his motion to vacate the said judgment. Order reversed, on the law, and motion remanded to Criminal Term for a hearing and new determination, which hearing shall be held expeditiously; the appeal from the judgment is held in abeyance in the interim. Under the circumstances presented, defendant’s motion should not have been denied without a hearing. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal bydefendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 18, 1974, adjudicating him a youthful offender, after his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the third degree, and imposing sentence and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, made June 5, 1975, which denied his motion to vacate the said judgment. Order reversed, on the law, and motion remanded to Criminal Term for a hearing and new determination, which hearing shall be held expeditiously; the appeal from the judgment is held in abeyance in the interim. Under the circumstances presented, defendant’s motion should not have been denied without a hearing. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 750, 379 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anthony-d-nyappdiv-1976.