People v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Klein

226 A.D.2d 1127, 642 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5671

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

DecidedApril 19, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 1127 (People v. Klein) 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. Klein, 226 A.D.2d 1127, 642 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contentions of defendant that his arraignment on a special information and the admission of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test were improper are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). County Court’s denial of defendant’s request for an adjournment of the suppression hearing was within the sound discretion of the court (see, People v Singleton, 41 NY2d 402, 405; see also, People v Hopkins, 76 NY2d 872, 873). Upon requesting an adjournment to produce a witness, defendant "failed to indicate to the court when, if ever, the witness! ] could be produced” (People v Patterson, 177 AD2d 1042, lv denied 79 NY2d 1052). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.— Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contentions of defendant that his arraignment on a special information and the admission of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test were improper are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). County Court’s denial of defendant’s request for an adjournment of the suppression hearing was within the sound discretion of the court (see, People v Singleton, 41 NY2d 402, 405; see also, People v Hopkins, 76 NY2d 872, 873). Upon requesting an adjournment to produce a witness, defendant "failed to indicate to the court when, if ever, the witness! ] could be produced” (People v Patterson, 177 AD2d 1042, lv denied 79 NY2d 1052). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.— Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 1127, 642 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-klein-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack