People v. Rushin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rushin

196 A.D.2d 835, 602 N.Y.S.2d 24

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 835 (People v. Rushin) 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. Rushin, 196 A.D.2d 835, 602 N.Y.S.2d 24 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the [836]*836defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), rendered March 5, 1992, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s position, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not based entirely on improper hearsay. Rather, it included an admission by the defendant (i.e., an exception to the hearsay rule) to his probation officer that he had been discharged from the drug treatment program he had been required to successfully complete for failing to follow directions (see, People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the [836]*836defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), rendered March 5, 1992, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s position, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not based entirely on improper hearsay. Rather, it included an admission by the defendant (i.e., an exception to the hearsay rule) to his probation officer that he had been discharged from the drug treatment program he had been required to successfully complete for failing to follow directions (see, People v Davis, 155 AD2d 610).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 835, 602 N.Y.S.2d 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rushin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack