People v. Dorsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dorsey

26 A.D.3d 800, 808 N.Y.S.2d 881

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 800 (People v. Dorsey) 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. Dorsey, 26 A.D.3d 800, 808 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), rendered April 28, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted grand larceny in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.35). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the checks that were discovered following his arrest on December 27, 2002 were part of the same transaction as charged in the superior court information, and thus the amount of restitution ordered was appropriate (see § 60.27 [4] [a]; cf. People v Taylor, 242 AD2d 925 [1997]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), rendered April 28, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted grand larceny in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.35). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the checks that were discovered following his arrest on December 27, 2002 were part of the same transaction as charged in the superior court information, and thus the amount of restitution ordered was appropriate (see § 60.27 [4] [a]; cf. People v Taylor, 242 AD2d 925 [1997]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 800, 808 N.Y.S.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dorsey-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack