People v. Salgado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salgado

282 A.D.2d 765, 724 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274

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

DecidedApril 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 765 (People v. Salgado) 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. Salgado, 282 A.D.2d 765, 724 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the de[766]*766fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 26, 1999, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

As the People concede, since the Supreme Court was unable to fulfill its sentence promise, the matter should be remitted to the Supreme Court to afford the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 241, cert denied 419 US 1122; People v Smith, 246 AD2d 562).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the de[766]*766fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 26, 1999, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

As the People concede, since the Supreme Court was unable to fulfill its sentence promise, the matter should be remitted to the Supreme Court to afford the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 241, cert denied 419 US 1122; People v Smith, 246 AD2d 562).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 765, 724 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-salgado-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack