People v. Kyem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kyem

272 A.D.2d 136, 708 N.Y.S.2d 613, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5422

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

DecidedMay 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 136 (People v. Kyem) 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. Kyem, 272 A.D.2d 136, 708 N.Y.S.2d 613, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered March 6, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of violation of probation, and revoking his sentence of probation and resentencing him to a prison term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the revocation of his probation, which occurred after his original term of probation had expired, is essentially a procedural challenge to the manner in which his term of probation was extended. Accordingly, this claim requires preservation (see, People v Douglas, 94 NY2d 807; People v Proctor, 79 NY2d 992; People v Oliver, 63 NY2d 973), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim, in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that, after defendant received ample opportunity to be heard on the declaration of delinquency filed against him, the violation of probation was sustained, whereupon the court continued and lawfully extendéd the term of probation (see, CPL 410.70 [1], [5]; Penal Law § 65.15 [2]). The court’s entire, ongoing course of conduct in its disposition of the declaration of delinquency was with defendant’s consent and afforded him extensive opportunities to make restitution, for which opportunity defendant expressed his thanks to the court. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered March 6, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of violation of probation, and revoking his sentence of probation and resentencing him to a prison term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the revocation of his probation, which occurred after his original term of probation had expired, is essentially a procedural challenge to the manner in which his term of probation was extended. Accordingly, this claim requires preservation (see, People v Douglas, 94 NY2d 807; People v Proctor, 79 NY2d 992; People v Oliver, 63 NY2d 973), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim, in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that, after defendant received ample opportunity to be heard on the declaration of delinquency filed against him, the violation of probation was sustained, whereupon the court continued and lawfully extendéd the term of probation (see, CPL 410.70 [1], [5]; Penal Law § 65.15 [2]). The court’s entire, ongoing course of conduct in its disposition of the declaration of delinquency was with defendant’s consent and afforded him extensive opportunities to make restitution, for which opportunity defendant expressed his thanks to the court. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 136, 708 N.Y.S.2d 613, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kyem-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack