People v. Craig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Craig

281 A.D.2d 429, 721 N.Y.S.2d 266, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2061

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 429 (People v. Craig) 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. Craig, 281 A.D.2d 429, 721 N.Y.S.2d 266, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered August 26, 1999, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in failing to order a hearing into the circumstances surrounding his discharge from the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) program is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Mackey, 77 NY2d 846; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Brown, 242 AD2d 337), and, in any event, without merit (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered August 26, 1999, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in failing to order a hearing into the circumstances surrounding his discharge from the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) program is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Mackey, 77 NY2d 846; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662; People v Brown, 242 AD2d 337), and, in any event, without merit (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 429, 721 N.Y.S.2d 266, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-craig-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack