People v. Cook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cook

118 A.D.3d 1499, 987 N.Y.S.2d 587

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

DecidedJune 20, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 A.D.3d 1499 (People v. Cook) 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. Cook, 118 A.D.3d 1499, 987 N.Y.S.2d 587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [2]). Defendant contends that the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing is invalid because it exceeds the maximum permissible duration of such an order, and that County Court erred in failing to take into account his jail time credit in determining the duration of the order of protection. As defendant correctly concedes, his contentions are unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the duration of the order of protection at sentencing (see People v Hoyt, 107 AD3d 1426, 1426 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; People v Decker, 77 AD3d 675, 675 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 952 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Present—Smith, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [2]). Defendant contends that the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing is invalid because it exceeds the maximum permissible duration of such an order, and that County Court erred in failing to take into account his jail time credit in determining the duration of the order of protection. As defendant correctly concedes, his contentions are unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the duration of the order of protection at sentencing (see People v Hoyt, 107 AD3d 1426, 1426 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; People v Decker, 77 AD3d 675, 675 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 952 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Present—Smith, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 1499, 987 N.Y.S.2d 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cook-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack