People v. Tower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tower

256 A.D.2d 1132, 684 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14241

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1132 (People v. Tower) 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. Tower, 256 A.D.2d 1132, 684 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By pleading guilty, defendant waived his contention that he was denied the right to appear before the Grand Jury (see, People v Franklin, 232 AD2d 577, lv denied 89 NY2d 985; People v Dennis, 223 AD2d 814, lv denied 87 NY2d 972; People v Smith, 168 AD2d 915, 916, lv denied 77 NY2d 911). Further, defendant failed to move to dismiss the indictment on that ground within five days of his arraignment, thereby waiving his right to contend at a later time that he was denied the right to appear (see, CPL 190.50 [5] [c]; People v Valle, 198 AD2d 459, lv denied 82 NY2d 932).

The record does not support defendant’s contention that the affidavit of the informant was not considered by the Town Court Justice as part of the search warrant application. The contention raised in defendant’s brief with respect to that application is based upon matters dehors the record, and thus is not properly before this Court (see, People v Thayer, 210 AD2d 977; People v Rodriguez, 123 AD2d 405, 406, lv denied 69 NY2d 832). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By pleading guilty, defendant waived his contention that he was denied the right to appear before the Grand Jury (see, People v Franklin, 232 AD2d 577, lv denied 89 NY2d 985; People v Dennis, 223 AD2d 814, lv denied 87 NY2d 972; People v Smith, 168 AD2d 915, 916, lv denied 77 NY2d 911). Further, defendant failed to move to dismiss the indictment on that ground within five days of his arraignment, thereby waiving his right to contend at a later time that he was denied the right to appear (see, CPL 190.50 [5] [c]; People v Valle, 198 AD2d 459, lv denied 82 NY2d 932).

The record does not support defendant’s contention that the affidavit of the informant was not considered by the Town Court Justice as part of the search warrant application. The contention raised in defendant’s brief with respect to that application is based upon matters dehors the record, and thus is not properly before this Court (see, People v Thayer, 210 AD2d 977; People v Rodriguez, 123 AD2d 405, 406, lv denied 69 NY2d 832). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1132, 684 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tower-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack