People v. Vandermark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vandermark

282 A.D.2d 554, 722 N.Y.S.2d 754, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 554 (People v. Vandermark) 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. Vandermark, 282 A.D.2d 554, 722 N.Y.S.2d 754, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered September 16, 1998, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The incident underlying the defendant’s conviction was the violation of the terms of a temporary order of protection issued pursuant to CPL 530.13 (1) (b). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the designation of the protected parties in the order was sufficiently specific to comply with the statute (see, CPL 530.13 [1] [b]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, 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, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered September 16, 1998, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The incident underlying the defendant’s conviction was the violation of the terms of a temporary order of protection issued pursuant to CPL 530.13 (1) (b). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the designation of the protected parties in the order was sufficiently specific to comply with the statute (see, CPL 530.13 [1] [b]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 554, 722 N.Y.S.2d 754, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vandermark-nyappdiv-2001.