People v. Noe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Noe

170 A.D.2d 1029, 566 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1773

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 1029 (People v. Noe) 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. Noe, 170 A.D.2d 1029, 566 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that the court lacked jurisdiction over the charge of forgery in the second degree because defendant had not been held for the action of a Grand Jury on that charge when he pled guilty to a Superior Court Information. He argues that his plea should be vacated. We disagree. The court’s dismissal of that charge and authorization to re-present it to a Grand Jury is deemed to constitute an order holding defendant for the action of the Grand Jury (CPL 210.45 [9]). We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal [1030]*1030from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.— Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that the court lacked jurisdiction over the charge of forgery in the second degree because defendant had not been held for the action of a Grand Jury on that charge when he pled guilty to a Superior Court Information. He argues that his plea should be vacated. We disagree. The court’s dismissal of that charge and authorization to re-present it to a Grand Jury is deemed to constitute an order holding defendant for the action of the Grand Jury (CPL 210.45 [9]). We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal [1030]*1030from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.— Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 1029, 566 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-noe-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack