People v. Safey-Kelsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Safey-Kelsch

301 A.D.2d 541, 752 N.Y.S.2d 903

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 541 (People v. Safey-Kelsch) 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. Safey-Kelsch, 301 A.D.2d 541, 752 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered October 19, 2001, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, she knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence as part of the plea agreement (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Scott, 272 AD2d 783). In light of this waiver, we do not review the defendant’s claim that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying her motion to adjourn sentencing to allow her additional time to make a restitution payment. Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered October 19, 2001, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, she knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence as part of the plea agreement (see People v Muniz, 91 NY2d 570; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Scott, 272 AD2d 783). In light of this waiver, we do not review the defendant’s claim that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying her motion to adjourn sentencing to allow her additional time to make a restitution payment. Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 541, 752 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-safey-kelsch-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack