People v. Moody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moody

224 A.D.2d 987, 638 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1639

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 987 (People v. Moody) 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. Moody, 224 A.D.2d 987, 638 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Case held, decision [988]*988reserved and matter remitted to Oneida County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Pending this appeal, County Court, with the consent of both parties, held a reconstruction hearing. The record reflects that the issue of what transpired at the initial Sandoval hearing was sharply contested and turned on issues of credibility. Because the reconstruction court failed to make findings of fact, we cannot determine whether a de novo hearing took place (see, People v Russell, 191 AD2d 1001, Iv denied 81 NY2d 1019). We, therefore, remit the matter to County Court to make the requisite findings of fact (see, People v Miller, 221 AD2d 1001). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Case held, decision [988]*988reserved and matter remitted to Oneida County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Pending this appeal, County Court, with the consent of both parties, held a reconstruction hearing. The record reflects that the issue of what transpired at the initial Sandoval hearing was sharply contested and turned on issues of credibility. Because the reconstruction court failed to make findings of fact, we cannot determine whether a de novo hearing took place (see, People v Russell, 191 AD2d 1001, Iv denied 81 NY2d 1019). We, therefore, remit the matter to County Court to make the requisite findings of fact (see, People v Miller, 221 AD2d 1001). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 987, 638 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moody-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack