People v. Araujo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Araujo

10 A.D.3d 535, 782 N.Y.S.2d 32, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10909

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 535 (People v. Araujo) 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. Araujo, 10 A.D.3d 535, 782 N.Y.S.2d 32, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J., at suppression hearing; James A. Yates, J., at plea and sentence), rendered October 10, 2001, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that after consultation with counsel, defendant executed a valid written waiver of his right to appeal (People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 [1990]). Accordingly, review of defendant’s suppression motion is foreclosed. In any event, were we to find that defendant’s waiver was invalid, we would find that the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J., at suppression hearing; James A. Yates, J., at plea and sentence), rendered October 10, 2001, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that after consultation with counsel, defendant executed a valid written waiver of his right to appeal (People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 [1990]). Accordingly, review of defendant’s suppression motion is foreclosed. In any event, were we to find that defendant’s waiver was invalid, we would find that the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 535, 782 N.Y.S.2d 32, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-araujo-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack