People v. Furka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Furka

192 A.D.2d 548, 596 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3410

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

DecidedApril 5, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 548 (People v. Furka) 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. Furka, 192 A.D.2d 548, 596 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered May 3, 1991, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the People that no violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial (US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6) occurred under the circumstances of this case. Far from seeking an expeditious disposition of the charges pending against him in New York, the defendant waged a protracted legal battle in order to thwart the People’s attempt to compel his production in this State pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (CPL art 580; see, Furka v Commissioner of Corrections, 41 Conn Supp 320, 573 A2d 772, affd 21 Conn App 298, 573 A2d 358). Almost all of the entirely nonprejudicial delay which occurred in bringing the defendant to justice in New York is attributable to the defendant himself. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and O’Brien, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered May 3, 1991, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the People that no violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial (US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6) occurred under the circumstances of this case. Far from seeking an expeditious disposition of the charges pending against him in New York, the defendant waged a protracted legal battle in order to thwart the People’s attempt to compel his production in this State pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (CPL art 580; see, Furka v Commissioner of Corrections, 41 Conn Supp 320, 573 A2d 772, affd 21 Conn App 298, 573 A2d 358). Almost all of the entirely nonprejudicial delay which occurred in bringing the defendant to justice in New York is attributable to the defendant himself. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 548, 596 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-furka-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack