People v. Hartley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hartley

224 A.D.2d 712, 638 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1823

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 712 (People v. Hartley) 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. Hartley, 224 A.D.2d 712, 638 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered June 10, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, and attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim on appeal, we agree with the Supreme Court that the People’s notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 adequately advised the defendant of their intent to introduce his written statement into evidence during the trial. As required pursuant to the statute, the notice informed the defendant of the time and place the written statement was [713]*713made and of the sum and substance of the statement (see, People v Lopez, 84 NY2d 425). Moreover, we find that the defendant was not denied a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30.

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Florio, 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, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered June 10, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, and attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim on appeal, we agree with the Supreme Court that the People’s notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 adequately advised the defendant of their intent to introduce his written statement into evidence during the trial. As required pursuant to the statute, the notice informed the defendant of the time and place the written statement was [713]*713made and of the sum and substance of the statement (see, People v Lopez, 84 NY2d 425). Moreover, we find that the defendant was not denied a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30.

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 712, 638 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hartley-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack