People v. Mokrzycki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mokrzycki

216 A.D.2d 493, 628 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6440

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

DecidedJune 19, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 493 (People v. Mokrzycki) 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. Mokrzycki, 216 A.D.2d 493, 628 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered April 28, 1992, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After the defendant was found fit to stand trial, there was no evidence of changed circumstances to indicate that the defendant’s mental status had deteriorated. Therefore, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a further psychiatric examination pursuant to CPL article 730 to ascertain his competency (see, People v Gensler, 72 NY2d 239, cert denied 488 US 932; [494]*494People v Greco, 177 AD2d 648; People v Savona, 176 AD2d 362; People v Rogers, 163 AD2d 337; People v Picozzi, 106 AD2d 413). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, 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, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered April 28, 1992, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After the defendant was found fit to stand trial, there was no evidence of changed circumstances to indicate that the defendant’s mental status had deteriorated. Therefore, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a further psychiatric examination pursuant to CPL article 730 to ascertain his competency (see, People v Gensler, 72 NY2d 239, cert denied 488 US 932; [494]*494People v Greco, 177 AD2d 648; People v Savona, 176 AD2d 362; People v Rogers, 163 AD2d 337; People v Picozzi, 106 AD2d 413). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 493, 628 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mokrzycki-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack