People v. Nagle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nagle

308 A.D.2d 390, 764 N.Y.S.2d 625, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9704

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 390 (People v. Nagle) 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. Nagle, 308 A.D.2d 390, 764 N.Y.S.2d 625, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J., on motions; Michael Obús, J., at plea and sentence), rendered July 30, 2001, convicting defendant of attempted computer trespass, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge with five days of community service and a $500 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was entitled to immunity from the use of certain evidence he furnished at the direction of his employer essentially constitutes a claim that his indictment was based on inadmissible evidence. Accordingly, his guilty plea forecloses review of this argument (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227 [2000]).

The motion court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [3]; 60.45 [2]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J., on motions; Michael Obús, J., at plea and sentence), rendered July 30, 2001, convicting defendant of attempted computer trespass, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge with five days of community service and a $500 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was entitled to immunity from the use of certain evidence he furnished at the direction of his employer essentially constitutes a claim that his indictment was based on inadmissible evidence. Accordingly, his guilty plea forecloses review of this argument (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227 [2000]).

The motion court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [3]; 60.45 [2]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 390, 764 N.Y.S.2d 625, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nagle-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack