People v. Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paul

148 A.D.3d 1723, 49 N.Y.S.3d 325

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A.D.3d 1723 (People v. Paul) 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. Paul, 148 A.D.3d 1723, 49 N.Y.S.3d 325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for re-argument granted and upon reargument, the order of this Court entered December 23, 2016 is vacated, and the motion of defendant for a writ of error coram nobis is granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an [1724]*1724issue on direct appeal, specifically, whether the Antommarchi waiver proffered by the attorney for defendant was valid. Upon our review of the motion papers, we conclude that the issue may have merit. The order of October 1, 2002 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046 [1989]). Defendant is directed to file and serve his records and briefs with this Court on or before July 24, 2017.

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Lindley, Trout-man and Scudder, JJ.

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

Motion for re-argument granted and upon reargument, the order of this Court entered December 23, 2016 is vacated, and the motion of defendant for a writ of error coram nobis is granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an [1724]*1724issue on direct appeal, specifically, whether the Antommarchi waiver proffered by the attorney for defendant was valid. Upon our review of the motion papers, we conclude that the issue may have merit. The order of October 1, 2002 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046 [1989]). Defendant is directed to file and serve his records and briefs with this Court on or before July 24, 2017.

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Lindley, Trout-man and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.3d 1723, 49 N.Y.S.3d 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paul-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack