People v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frank

295 A.D.2d 535, 744 N.Y.S.2d 682, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6396

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

DecidedJune 17, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 535 (People v. Frank) 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. Frank, 295 A.D.2d 535, 744 N.Y.S.2d 682, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered January 25, 2000, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (six counts), and unauthorized practice of pharmacy, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has failed to satisfy her burden of coming forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 523) with respect to her claim that she was deprived of her right to be present at the Sandoval! Ventimiglia hearing (see People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371; People v Firrira, 258 AD2d 666; People v Robinson, supra; People v Pichardo, 168 AD2d 577). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered January 25, 2000, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (six counts), and unauthorized practice of pharmacy, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has failed to satisfy her burden of coming forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to all criminal proceedings (see People v Robinson, 191 AD2d 523) with respect to her claim that she was deprived of her right to be present at the Sandoval! Ventimiglia hearing (see People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371; People v Firrira, 258 AD2d 666; People v Robinson, supra; People v Pichardo, 168 AD2d 577). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 535, 744 N.Y.S.2d 682, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frank-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack