People v. Manitaras

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manitaras

55 A.D.2d 629, 389 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15365

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 629 (People v. Manitaras) 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. Manitaras, 55 A.D.2d 629, 389 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

? by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered October 23, 1975, convicting him of bail jumping in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. This case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Defendant’s contention that he should have been permitted to answer questions concerning his state of mind when he left the jurisdiction while on trial, is without merit. Defendant’s intent is immaterial as to the crime of bail jumping and as to its affirmative defense (see Penal Law, §§ 215.57, 215.59; People v Harris, 54 AD2d 739). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

? by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered October 23, 1975, convicting him of bail jumping in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. This case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Defendant’s contention that he should have been permitted to answer questions concerning his state of mind when he left the jurisdiction while on trial, is without merit. Defendant’s intent is immaterial as to the crime of bail jumping and as to its affirmative defense (see Penal Law, §§ 215.57, 215.59; People v Harris, 54 AD2d 739). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 629, 389 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manitaras-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack