People v. Hanson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hanson

222 A.D.2d 1126, 636 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14361

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1126 (People v. Hanson) 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. Hanson, 222 A.D.2d 1126, 636 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Motion to extend time to take appeal denied. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 460.30 (1) for an extension of time to take an appeal based upon defendant’s inability to communicate with trial counsel concerning whether to take an appeal does not comply with the requirements of CPL 460.30 (2). That subdivision requires that the motion papers "contain sworn allegations of facts claimed to establish the * * * inability to communicate, or other facts essential to support the motion”. Defendant failed to set forth the requisite facts in support of his motion. Therefore, we deny defendant’s motion [1127]*1127with leave to renew in compliance with CPL 460.30 (2). Present — Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Motion to extend time to take appeal denied. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 460.30 (1) for an extension of time to take an appeal based upon defendant’s inability to communicate with trial counsel concerning whether to take an appeal does not comply with the requirements of CPL 460.30 (2). That subdivision requires that the motion papers "contain sworn allegations of facts claimed to establish the * * * inability to communicate, or other facts essential to support the motion”. Defendant failed to set forth the requisite facts in support of his motion. Therefore, we deny defendant’s motion [1127]*1127with leave to renew in compliance with CPL 460.30 (2). Present — Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1126, 636 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hanson-nyappdiv-1995.