People v. McCray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCray

27 A.D.3d 486, 810 N.Y.S.2d 336

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 486 (People v. McCray) 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. McCray, 27 A.D.3d 486, 810 N.Y.S.2d 336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered January 27, 2005, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 41 [d-1]), the Legislature expressed its intent that, with certain exceptions not applicable herein, the ameliorative provisions of the act were not to be applied to crimes committed before the effective date of the act. The defendant’s crime was committed before the effective date of the act. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s contention that she is entitled to the benefits of the ameliorative provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act (see People v Torres, 26 AD3d 398 [2006]; People v Goode, 25 AD3d 723 [2006]; People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered January 27, 2005, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 41 [d-1]), the Legislature expressed its intent that, with certain exceptions not applicable herein, the ameliorative provisions of the act were not to be applied to crimes committed before the effective date of the act. The defendant’s crime was committed before the effective date of the act. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s contention that she is entitled to the benefits of the ameliorative provisions of the Drug Law Reform Act (see People v Torres, 26 AD3d 398 [2006]; People v Goode, 25 AD3d 723 [2006]; People v Nelson, 21 AD3d 861 [2005]). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 486, 810 N.Y.S.2d 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccray-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack