People v. DiRoma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DiRoma

251 A.D.2d 1063, 672 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7160

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

DecidedJune 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 1063 (People v. DiRoma) 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. DiRoma, 251 A.D.2d 1063, 672 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to raise in his omnibus motion his present contention that the assault counts of the indictment should have been dismissed because they failed to apprise him sufficiently of the operative facts constituting the crimes of assault. Thus, defendant has failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, People v Waldron, 162 AD2d 485; People v Di Noia, 105 AD2d 799, 800, lv denied 64 NY2d 759, cert denied 471 US 1022; see also, CPL 210.20, 210.25). In any event, defendant was given fair notice of the charges against him (see, People v Nichols, 193 AD2d 764, 765, lv denied 82 NY2d 723).

The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to raise in his omnibus motion his present contention that the assault counts of the indictment should have been dismissed because they failed to apprise him sufficiently of the operative facts constituting the crimes of assault. Thus, defendant has failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, People v Waldron, 162 AD2d 485; People v Di Noia, 105 AD2d 799, 800, lv denied 64 NY2d 759, cert denied 471 US 1022; see also, CPL 210.20, 210.25). In any event, defendant was given fair notice of the charges against him (see, People v Nichols, 193 AD2d 764, 765, lv denied 82 NY2d 723).

The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 1063, 672 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diroma-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack