People v. Kane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kane

100 A.D.2d 944, 474 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18078

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

DecidedApril 23, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 944 (People v. Kane) 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. Kane, 100 A.D.2d 944, 474 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Lamont, J.), imposed July 15, 1982, upon his conviction of burglary in the third degree, insofar as it denied his application for youthful offender treatment. 11 Sentence affirmed, insofar as appealed from. H Since defendant had been previously adjudicated a youthful offender following his conviction of a felony, he was ineligible for youthful offender treatment following his subsequent conviction of the instant crime of burglary in the third degree (see CPL 720.10, subd 2, par [c]; People v Green, 75 AD2d 625). In any event, even if defendant was eligible, his record and background would support the denial of youthful offender treatment. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Lamont, J.), imposed July 15, 1982, upon his conviction of burglary in the third degree, insofar as it denied his application for youthful offender treatment. 11 Sentence affirmed, insofar as appealed from. H Since defendant had been previously adjudicated a youthful offender following his conviction of a felony, he was ineligible for youthful offender treatment following his subsequent conviction of the instant crime of burglary in the third degree (see CPL 720.10, subd 2, par [c]; People v Green, 75 AD2d 625). In any event, even if defendant was eligible, his record and background would support the denial of youthful offender treatment. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 944, 474 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kane-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack