People v. McPherson

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McPherson

174 Misc. 2d 948, 668 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 651

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 Misc. 2d 948 (People v. McPherson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. McPherson, 174 Misc. 2d 948, 668 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order dated July 11, 1996 affirmed, without costs.

[949]*949Criminal Court’s imposition of a $50 sanction against appellant for his failure to timely appear at the scheduled hearing was not an abuse of discretion. On July 9, 1996, appellant was directed to appear on the morning of July 10. On that date, appellant did not appear until 12:45 p.m., without having called or arranged for another attorney to advise the court of his engagement in a different Part. Under these circumstances, the court could fairly conclude that appellant’s late appearance was "without good cause” (22 NYCRR 130-2.1 [b]; Matter of Marcus v Bamberger, 180 AD2d 533; cf. Matter of Walsh v People, 206 AD2d 434). Appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the issue of sanctions (22 NYCRR 130-2.1 [d]).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order dated July 11, 1996 affirmed, without costs.

[949]*949Criminal Court’s imposition of a $50 sanction against appellant for his failure to timely appear at the scheduled hearing was not an abuse of discretion. On July 9, 1996, appellant was directed to appear on the morning of July 10. On that date, appellant did not appear until 12:45 p.m., without having called or arranged for another attorney to advise the court of his engagement in a different Part. Under these circumstances, the court could fairly conclude that appellant’s late appearance was "without good cause” (22 NYCRR 130-2.1 [b]; Matter of Marcus v Bamberger, 180 AD2d 533; cf. Matter of Walsh v People, 206 AD2d 434). Appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the issue of sanctions (22 NYCRR 130-2.1 [d]).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 Misc. 2d 948, 668 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcpherson-nyappterm-1997.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack