People v. Jeffrey M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jeffrey M.

62 A.D.2d 1024, 403 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11084

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

DecidedApril 10, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.2d 1024 (People v. Jeffrey M.) 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. Jeffrey M., 62 A.D.2d 1024, 403 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered April 12, 1976, convicting them of reckless endangerment in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgments modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by granting defendants’ applications for youthful offender treatment. As so modified, judgments affirmed and cases remitted to Crimi[1025]*1025nal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Under the circumstances presented, including the defendants’ exemplary backgrounds and the favorable probation report, it was an abuse of discretion not to accord them youthful offender treatment. Defendants’ other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Latham, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered April 12, 1976, convicting them of reckless endangerment in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgments modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by granting defendants’ applications for youthful offender treatment. As so modified, judgments affirmed and cases remitted to Crimi[1025]*1025nal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Under the circumstances presented, including the defendants’ exemplary backgrounds and the favorable probation report, it was an abuse of discretion not to accord them youthful offender treatment. Defendants’ other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Latham, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.2d 1024, 403 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jeffrey-m-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack