People v. Dunson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dunson

44 A.D.2d 806, 355 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4998

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

DecidedMay 16, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 806 (People v. Dunson) 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. Dunson, 44 A.D.2d 806, 355 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered September 7, 1972, after a jury trial, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the ease remanded to the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, for resentencing; and otherwise affirmed. The record indicates that at the time of sentencing, the court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of CPL 380.50 in not affording defendant the right to make a statement personally in his behalf and in not inquiring of defendant whether he wished- to make such a statement. Failure to comply with CPL 380.50 constituted error requiring that defendant be remanded for resentence. (See People v. Lotz, 42 A D 2d 900, and cases cited therein.) Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered September 7, 1972, after a jury trial, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the ease remanded to the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, for resentencing; and otherwise affirmed. The record indicates that at the time of sentencing, the court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of CPL 380.50 in not affording defendant the right to make a statement personally in his behalf and in not inquiring of defendant whether he wished- to make such a statement. Failure to comply with CPL 380.50 constituted error requiring that defendant be remanded for resentence. (See People v. Lotz, 42 A D 2d 900, and cases cited therein.) Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 806, 355 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dunson-nyappdiv-1974.