People v. Hook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hook

138 A.D.3d 411, 27 N.Y.S.3d 859

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

DecidedApril 5, 2016

Docket704 1586/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 411 (People v. Hook) 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. Hook, 138 A.D.3d 411, 27 N.Y.S.3d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Nunez, J.), rendered September 26, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second drug felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly found that defendant violated the no-arrest condition of his plea agreement, and thus forfeited the opportunity to have his conviction replaced by a misdemeanor conviction. There was a legitimate basis for the arrest (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]), notwithstanding that it resulted in an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see People v Smith, 248 AD2d 179 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 1013 [1998]). The prosecutor’s statement indicated that defendant was arrested for assaulting his wife with a hot iron in front of their young son. Defendant conceded his involvement in the incident, but claimed justification. The court had ample basis to reject that defense (see e.g. People v Redwood, 41 AD3d 275, 275 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 880 [2007]), and in any event defendant was not entitled to a minitrial on the issue of whether the evidence disproved justification (see Outley, 80 NY2d at 712-713). Under the circumstances, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to conduct a more extensive hearing or to consider police and medical records, and any error in this regard was harmless.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Nunez, J.), rendered September 26, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second drug felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly found that defendant violated the no-arrest condition of his plea agreement, and thus forfeited the opportunity to have his conviction replaced by a misdemeanor conviction. There was a legitimate basis for the arrest (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]), notwithstanding that it resulted in an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see People v Smith, 248 AD2d 179 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 1013 [1998]). The prosecutor’s statement indicated that defendant was arrested for assaulting his wife with a hot iron in front of their young son. Defendant conceded his involvement in the incident, but claimed justification. The court had ample basis to reject that defense (see e.g. People v Redwood, 41 AD3d 275, 275 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 880 [2007]), and in any event defendant was not entitled to a minitrial on the issue of whether the evidence disproved justification (see Outley, 80 NY2d at 712-713). Under the circumstances, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to conduct a more extensive hearing or to consider police and medical records, and any error in this regard was harmless.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 411, 27 N.Y.S.3d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hook-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack