People v. Shell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shell

266 A.D.2d 28, 698 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11179

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 28 (People v. Shell) 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. Shell, 266 A.D.2d 28, 698 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), entered on or about June 15, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for remission of forfeited bail, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that, contrary to defendant’s contention, his bail was reinstated, not exonerated, on February 22, 1990. Accordingly, a new forfeiture order was properly entered on June 19, 1990 when defendant failed to appear in court due to his incarceration. Thus, it was a proper exercise of discretion to deny the motion for remission since defendant’s incarceration after committing a crime while out on bail “did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, and was the result of his willful conduct” (People v Cotto, 262 AD2d 138). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), entered on or about June 15, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for remission of forfeited bail, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that, contrary to defendant’s contention, his bail was reinstated, not exonerated, on February 22, 1990. Accordingly, a new forfeiture order was properly entered on June 19, 1990 when defendant failed to appear in court due to his incarceration. Thus, it was a proper exercise of discretion to deny the motion for remission since defendant’s incarceration after committing a crime while out on bail “did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, and was the result of his willful conduct” (People v Cotto, 262 AD2d 138). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 28, 698 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shell-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack