People v. Hooper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hooper

45 A.D.3d 460, 845 N.Y.S.2d 733

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 460 (People v. Hooper) 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. Hooper, 45 A.D.3d 460, 845 N.Y.S.2d 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J., on speedy trial motion; Eduardo Padro, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 12, 2005, convicting defendant, of petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the [461]*461fifth degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of one year and 45 days, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s speedy trial motion. The court properly excluded the 28-day adjournment following the decision on defendant’s omnibus motion, as a reasonable period for the People to prepare for trial in what was originally a robbery case (see e.g. People v Rowe, 227 AD2d 212, 213 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 993 [1996]; People v Chambers, 226 AD2d 284 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 981 [1996]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J., on speedy trial motion; Eduardo Padro, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 12, 2005, convicting defendant, of petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the [461]*461fifth degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of one year and 45 days, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s speedy trial motion. The court properly excluded the 28-day adjournment following the decision on defendant’s omnibus motion, as a reasonable period for the People to prepare for trial in what was originally a robbery case (see e.g. People v Rowe, 227 AD2d 212, 213 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 993 [1996]; People v Chambers, 226 AD2d 284 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 981 [1996]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 460, 845 N.Y.S.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hooper-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack