People v. Hannan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hannan

303 A.D.2d 765, 757 N.Y.S.2d 439, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3354

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 765 (People v. Hannan) 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. Hannan, 303 A.D.2d 765, 757 N.Y.S.2d 439, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered January 23, 2001, convicting her of scheme to defraud in the first degree and grand larceny in the second degree (four counts), upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenges to the adequacy of the procedure utilized by the County Court in determining and imposing [766]*766restitution are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Vazqueztell, 273 AD2d 328 [2000]; People v Bushati, 246 AD2d 663 [1998]). In any event, her contentions are without merit, as the amount of restitution was a condition of her plea and she specifically agreed to that amount in her plea allocution (see People v Vazqueztell, supra; People v Bushati, supra). Altman, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Adams and Cozier, 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, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered January 23, 2001, convicting her of scheme to defraud in the first degree and grand larceny in the second degree (four counts), upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenges to the adequacy of the procedure utilized by the County Court in determining and imposing [766]*766restitution are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Vazqueztell, 273 AD2d 328 [2000]; People v Bushati, 246 AD2d 663 [1998]). In any event, her contentions are without merit, as the amount of restitution was a condition of her plea and she specifically agreed to that amount in her plea allocution (see People v Vazqueztell, supra; People v Bushati, supra). Altman, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 765, 757 N.Y.S.2d 439, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hannan-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack