People v. Holdip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holdip

150 A.D.2d 726, 541 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7080

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

DecidedMay 22, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.D.2d 726 (People v. Holdip) 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. Holdip, 150 A.D.2d 726, 541 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marlow, J.), rendered May 16, 1984, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By his plea of guilty, the defendant waived the alleged failure to comply with Family Court Act § 812 (see, People v Mack, 53 NY2d 803; People v Harris, 113 Misc 2d 46, 50; see also, CPL 530.11). Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, any defect in compliance with that statute does not constitute a nonwaivable jurisdictional infirmity (see, People v Mack, supra; Besharov, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, part I, Family Ct Act § 812, at 140-141). Because the defendant waived his statutory claim, we do not reach the merits of his contention that the indictment should be dismissed for failure to advise the complainant of her right of election pursuant to Family Court Act § 812 (2). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Sullivan, 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 (Marlow, J.), rendered May 16, 1984, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By his plea of guilty, the defendant waived the alleged failure to comply with Family Court Act § 812 (see, People v Mack, 53 NY2d 803; People v Harris, 113 Misc 2d 46, 50; see also, CPL 530.11). Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, any defect in compliance with that statute does not constitute a nonwaivable jurisdictional infirmity (see, People v Mack, supra; Besharov, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, part I, Family Ct Act § 812, at 140-141). Because the defendant waived his statutory claim, we do not reach the merits of his contention that the indictment should be dismissed for failure to advise the complainant of her right of election pursuant to Family Court Act § 812 (2). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 726, 541 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holdip-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack