People v. Fay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fay

266 A.D.2d 11, 697 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11173

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 11 (People v. Fay) 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. Fay, 266 A.D.2d 11, 697 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11173 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J., at suppression hearing; Joan Sudolnik, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered September 12, 1995, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s right to counsel did not attach as counsel’s letter did not constitute a recognizable request to attend the lineup, and defendant did not make any such request (see, People v Cook, 254 AD2d 92, lv denied 93 NY2d 851).

Also, we find that the police efforts to notify that attorney [12]*12were reasonable under the circumstances (People v Burney, 249 AD2d 84, lv denied 92 NY2d 923; People v Coates, 74 NY2d 244, 249; People v Irick, 243 AD2d 652, lv denied 91 NY2d 926; People v Cherry, 161 AD2d 185, lv denied 76 NY2d 854).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Rubin, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J., at suppression hearing; Joan Sudolnik, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered September 12, 1995, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s right to counsel did not attach as counsel’s letter did not constitute a recognizable request to attend the lineup, and defendant did not make any such request (see, People v Cook, 254 AD2d 92, lv denied 93 NY2d 851).

Also, we find that the police efforts to notify that attorney [12]*12were reasonable under the circumstances (People v Burney, 249 AD2d 84, lv denied 92 NY2d 923; People v Coates, 74 NY2d 244, 249; People v Irick, 243 AD2d 652, lv denied 91 NY2d 926; People v Cherry, 161 AD2d 185, lv denied 76 NY2d 854).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Rubin, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 11, 697 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fay-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack