People v. Crossley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crossley

175 A.D.2d 678, 573 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10332

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 175 A.D.2d 678 (People v. Crossley) 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. Crossley, 175 A.D.2d 678, 573 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Motion to extend time to take appeal denied. Memorandum: In moving for permission to file and serve a late notice of appeal (see, CPL 460.30), defendant alleges that the failure to file the notice timely was due to improper conduct of his trial counsel, who failed to file a notice of appeal on his behalf. Defense counsel has provided us with a copy of a written form complying with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a), which he gave to defendant immediately after sentencing, advising defendant of his right to appeal. On the copy of the form signed by defendant, defendant indicated that he did not wish to take an appeal. This documentary evidence refutes defendant’s allegation of improper conduct of defense counsel. Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Motion to extend time to take appeal denied. Memorandum: In moving for permission to file and serve a late notice of appeal (see, CPL 460.30), defendant alleges that the failure to file the notice timely was due to improper conduct of his trial counsel, who failed to file a notice of appeal on his behalf. Defense counsel has provided us with a copy of a written form complying with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a), which he gave to defendant immediately after sentencing, advising defendant of his right to appeal. On the copy of the form signed by defendant, defendant indicated that he did not wish to take an appeal. This documentary evidence refutes defendant’s allegation of improper conduct of defense counsel. Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 678, 573 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crossley-nyappdiv-1991.