People v. Law

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Law

12 A.D.3d 192, 783 N.Y.S.2d 812, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13156

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 192 (People v. Law) 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. Law, 12 A.D.3d 192, 783 N.Y.S.2d 812, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), rendered August 16, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously dismissed.

Defendant, having absconded from parole supervision, is not presently available to obey the mandate of the court (see People v Perez, 38 NY2d 904 [1976]). Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would affirm, concluding that the court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion, that defendant received effective assistance of counsel, and that defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), rendered August 16, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously dismissed.

Defendant, having absconded from parole supervision, is not presently available to obey the mandate of the court (see People v Perez, 38 NY2d 904 [1976]). Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would affirm, concluding that the court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion, that defendant received effective assistance of counsel, and that defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 192, 783 N.Y.S.2d 812, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-law-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack