People v. Foringer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Foringer

267 A.D.2d 1092, 700 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1999

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 1092 (People v. Foringer) 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. Foringer, 267 A.D.2d 1092, 700 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from judgments of conviction entered upon pleas of guilty. By failing to move to withdraw the pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction, he failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual allocutions (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Hill, 254 AD2d 726, lv denied 92 NY2d 1050). Neither case “qualifies] for the narrow, ‘rare case’ exception to the preservation doctrine” (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839). The sentences are not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Criminal Contempt, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from judgments of conviction entered upon pleas of guilty. By failing to move to withdraw the pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction, he failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual allocutions (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Hill, 254 AD2d 726, lv denied 92 NY2d 1050). Neither case “qualifies] for the narrow, ‘rare case’ exception to the preservation doctrine” (People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839). The sentences are not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Criminal Contempt, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 1092, 700 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-foringer-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack