People v. Drame

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Drame

135 A.D.3d 435, 21 N.Y.S.3d 885

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 2016

Docket16544

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.3d 435 (People v. Drame) 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. Drame, 135 A.D.3d 435, 21 N.Y.S.3d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J.), rendered March 28, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of making false statements in connection with an examination, and sentencing him to a fine of $300 or 90 days in jail, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). The accusatory instrument sufficiently alerted defendant to the charged crimes, specified information from which his knowledge and intent could be inferred and provided reasonable cause to believe that he submitted a license application to the Department of Motor Vehicles containing false information *436 {id. at 524-526). Concur — Acosta, J.P., Andrias, ManzanetDaniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J.), rendered March 28, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of making false statements in connection with an examination, and sentencing him to a fine of $300 or 90 days in jail, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). The accusatory instrument sufficiently alerted defendant to the charged crimes, specified information from which his knowledge and intent could be inferred and provided reasonable cause to believe that he submitted a license application to the Department of Motor Vehicles containing false information *436 {id. at 524-526). Concur — Acosta, J.P., Andrias, ManzanetDaniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 435, 21 N.Y.S.3d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-drame-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack