People v. Zafar R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zafar R.

61 A.D.3d 897, 876 N.Y.S.2d 877

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

DecidedApril 21, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 897 (People v. Zafar R.) 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. Zafar R., 61 A.D.3d 897, 876 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J.), rendered May 22, 2008, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Chin-Brandt, J.) under Superior Court information No. 426/05, upon a finding that he had violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for criminal mischief in the third degree.

[898]*898Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Superior Court information was jurisdictionally defective should have been raised on direct appeal from the original judgment of conviction (see People v Cuadrado, 9 NY3d 362, 365 [2007]). Since the defendant did not appeal from the original judgment, he is foreclosed on this appeal from the amended judgment from challenging the propriety of the original judgment (see People v Trias, 50 AD3d 828 [2008]; People v Pagan, 27 AD3d 580 [2006]; People v Kimbrough, 25 AD3d 810 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J.), rendered May 22, 2008, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Chin-Brandt, J.) under Superior Court information No. 426/05, upon a finding that he had violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for criminal mischief in the third degree.

[898]*898Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Superior Court information was jurisdictionally defective should have been raised on direct appeal from the original judgment of conviction (see People v Cuadrado, 9 NY3d 362, 365 [2007]). Since the defendant did not appeal from the original judgment, he is foreclosed on this appeal from the amended judgment from challenging the propriety of the original judgment (see People v Trias, 50 AD3d 828 [2008]; People v Pagan, 27 AD3d 580 [2006]; People v Kimbrough, 25 AD3d 810 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 897, 876 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zafar-r-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack