People v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lee

41 A.D.2d 757, 341 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4936

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 757 (People v. Lee) 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. Lee, 41 A.D.2d 757, 341 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 20, 1971, affirmed (CPL 470.05, subd. 1). There are two notices of appeal in the printed record on appeal. They are dated September 21, 1971 and October 13, 1971, respectively, more than 30 days after the rendition of the judgment. Accordingly, it patently appears that neither of those notices is effective to bring on this appeal (CPL 460.10, subd. 1). However, we 'have determined that the appeal was timely brought on the basis of defendant’s letter, dated September 10,1971, which was received by the clerk of the trial court and in which defendant sought leave to appeal in forma pauperis. We have treated the letter as an effective notice of appeal. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 20, 1971, affirmed (CPL 470.05, subd. 1). There are two notices of appeal in the printed record on appeal. They are dated September 21, 1971 and October 13, 1971, respectively, more than 30 days after the rendition of the judgment. Accordingly, it patently appears that neither of those notices is effective to bring on this appeal (CPL 460.10, subd. 1). However, we 'have determined that the appeal was timely brought on the basis of defendant’s letter, dated September 10,1971, which was received by the clerk of the trial court and in which defendant sought leave to appeal in forma pauperis. We have treated the letter as an effective notice of appeal. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 757, 341 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lee-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack