People v. Zigler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zigler

305 A.D.2d 332, 759 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6107

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

DecidedMay 29, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 332 (People v. Zigler) 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. Zigler, 305 A.D.2d 332, 759 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at suppression motion; Dorothy Cropper, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 13, 2000, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing. The totality of the record, with particular reference to the motion court’s colloquy with counsel concerning the facts of the case, establishes that defendant’s allegations were insufficient, in light of his access to relevant information, to raise a factual issue warranting a hearing (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 728-729 [2001]; People v Soto, 284 AD2d 158 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 924 [2001]; People v Rosario, 245 AD2d 151 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 896 [1998]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at suppression motion; Dorothy Cropper, J., at plea and sentence), rendered March 13, 2000, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing. The totality of the record, with particular reference to the motion court’s colloquy with counsel concerning the facts of the case, establishes that defendant’s allegations were insufficient, in light of his access to relevant information, to raise a factual issue warranting a hearing (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 728-729 [2001]; People v Soto, 284 AD2d 158 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 924 [2001]; People v Rosario, 245 AD2d 151 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 896 [1998]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 332, 759 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zigler-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack