Appellate division : fourth judicial department decisions filed


§ 160.10 [1], [2] [b]), defendant contends only that the sentence is


Download 3.95 Mb.
Pdf ko'rish
bet12/19
Sana15.12.2019
Hajmi3.95 Mb.
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   19
§ 160.10 [1], [2] [b]), defendant contends only that the sentence is
unduly harsh and severe.  We reject that contention.  We note,
however, that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that
defendant was convicted on January 6, 2013, and it must therefore be
amended to reflect that he was convicted on January 6, 2014 (see
People v Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286, 1286-1287).
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1159    
KA 14-01045  
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.     
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
MARK HAWKINS, ALSO KNOWN AS MARCUS COLEMAN,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
                          
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.   
MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DANIEL J.
PUNCH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                     
                        
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County
(Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered May 27, 2014.  The judgment
convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession
of a weapon in the third degree.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the
third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [3]).  Defendant failed to preserve
for our review his challenge to Supreme Court’s alleged enhancement of
his sentence at the time of sentencing inasmuch as defendant did not
object to the alleged enhanced sentence or move to withdraw his guilty
plea (see People v Viele, 124 AD3d 1222, 1223).  We decline to
exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of
discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).  We
reject defendant’s contention that his sentence is unduly harsh and
severe.
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1160    
KA 14-02212  
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.     
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
CHARLES HOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
                          
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW
S. SZALKOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                             
                          
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County
(Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered December 5, 2014.  The judgment
convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of promoting prison
contraband in the first degree.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Memorandum:  On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a
jury trial of promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal
Law § 205.25 [2]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the
weight of the evidence.  We reject that contention.  The evidence at
trial established that defendant, an inmate in state prison, knowingly
possessed the contraband in question, i.e., a razor blade melted into
a pen cap that was found in his sock.  Thus, viewing the evidence in
light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People
v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not
against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley,
69 NY2d 490, 495).  
Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in allowing the
People to introduce testimony that defendant made an inculpatory
statement, i.e., that the contraband was his, is unpreserved for our
review inasmuch as he failed to move to suppress that evidence (see
generally CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review defendant’s
contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see
CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1164    
KA 14-00821  
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.     
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
JOSHUA A. GANG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
                        
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                              
                    
Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P.
Punch, J.), rendered July 8, 2013.  The judgment convicted defendant,
upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law 
§ 140.25 [2]).  Contrary to defendant’s contention, the 18-month
preindictment delay did not deprive him of due process (see generally
People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 253-254).  It is well established that
“a determination made in good faith to defer commencement of the
prosecution for further investigation[,] or for other sufficient
reasons, will not deprive the defendant of due process of law even
though the delay may cause some prejudice to the defense” (Singer, 44
NY2d at 254).  Here, the “investigative delays were satisfactorily
explained and were permissible exercises of prosecutorial discretion”
(People v Nazario, 85 AD3d 577, 577, lv denied 17 NY3d 904).  Upon our
review of the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442,
445), we conclude that the delay did not deprive defendant of his
right to due process (see People v Johnson, 134 AD3d 1388, 1389-1390,
affd ___ NY3d ___ [Nov. 17, 2016]). 
With respect to defendant’s remaining contentions, even assuming,
arguendo, that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was knowing,
intelligent and voluntary, we agree with defendant that the waiver
does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence
because “ ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the
allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his
conviction’ that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue
concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v Lorenz, 119 AD3d

-2-
1164    
KA 14-00821  
1450, 1450, lv denied 24 NY3d 962; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925,
928).  Nevertheless, we reject defendant’s contention that his
sentence is unduly harsh and severe.
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1165    
KA 14-00059  
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.     
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
ANTHONY A. CARTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
                     
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R.
LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                     
                        
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L.
D’Amico, J.), rendered November 20, 2013.  The judgment convicted
defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Memorandum:  On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury
verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]),
defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally
sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence with respect to the issues of intent to cause physical injury
and justification. 
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People
(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that the evidence
that defendant stabbed the victim in the face and leg is legally
sufficient to establish that defendant intended to cause physical
injury (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).  To the
extent that defendant contends that the evidence is legally
insufficient to support the conviction because the People failed to
disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt, we
conclude that such contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch
as defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on that
ground (see People v Fafone, 129 AD3d 1667, 1668, lv denied 26 NY3d
1039).  In any event, the evidence is legally sufficient to disprove
defendant’s justification defense (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at
495).
We further conclude that, viewing the evidence in light of the
elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson,
9 NY3d 342, 349), the verdict is not against the weight of the
evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).  Even assuming,

-2-
1165    
KA 14-00059  
arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable,
we note that “ ‘the jury was in the best position to assess the
credibility of the witnesses and, on this record, it cannot be said
that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be
accorded’ ” (People v Chelley, 121 AD3d 1505, 1506, lv denied 24 NY3d
1218, reconsideration denied 25 NY3d 1070).  
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1166    
CAF 14-00965 
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.     
                                                            
IN THE MATTER OF DANARYEE B.                                
------------------------------------------      
ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,        MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;                                      
    
ERICA T., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.                             
EVELYNE A. O’SULLIVAN, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.   
NICHOLAS G. LOCICERO, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.   
DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF
BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL).              
                
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Sharon M.
LoVallo, J.), entered May 29, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family
Court Act article 10.  The order, inter alia, determined that
respondent had neglected the subject child.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:  In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act
article 10, respondent mother appeals from an order finding that she
neglected the subject child.  Contrary to the mother’s contention,
petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
physical, mental, or emotional condition of the child had been or is
in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the mother’s
failure to exercise a minimum degree of care (see Family Ct Act
§§ 1012 [f] [i]; 1046 [b] [i]; see generally Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3
NY3d 357, 368).  Specifically, petitioner presented evidence
establishing that the child was in imminent danger because she was
exposed to unsanitary and deplorable living conditions, including
floors covered in animal feces and ankle-deep piles of garbage (see
Matter of Josee Louise L.H. [DeCarla L.], 121 AD3d 492, 492-493, lv
denied 24 NY3d 913; Matter of Holly B. [Scott B.], 117 AD3d 1592,
1592-1593; Matter of Raven B. [Melissa K.N.], 115 AD3d 1276, 1280-
1281).  Further, the credible evidence established that the mother’s
residence did not contain a bed or diapers for the child (see Matter
of China C. [Alexis C.], 116 AD3d 953, 954, lv dismissed 23 NY3d 1047;
Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Anne F., 225 AD2d 620, 620).
Contrary to the mother’s further contention, any error in
receiving petitioner’s exhibits in evidence is harmless “because the

-2-
1166    
CAF 14-00965 
record otherwise contains ample admissible evidence to support [Family
Court’s] determination” that the mother neglected the child (Matter of
Matthews v Matthews, 72 AD3d 1631, 1632, lv denied 15 NY3d 704; see
Matter of Delehia J. [Tameka J.], 93 AD3d 668, 670).  Finally, the
mother’s contention that the court erred in striking the testimony of
one of her witnesses is not preserved for our review (see generally
CPLR 5501 [a] [3]; Matter of Crystal A., 11 AD3d 897, 898).
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1169    
CAF 14-01333 
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.     
                                                            
                                                            
IN THE MATTER OF ZAKIYYAH WOLFFORD,                         
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,                                       
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
ANTHONY STEPHENS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.                    
----------------------------------------      
IN THE MATTER OF ZAKIYYAH WOLFFORD,                         
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
V
                                                            
GAYLE BRYNETTE, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
                      
EVELYNE A. O’SULLIVAN, EAST AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.   
BERNADETTE M. HOPPE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO.                  
        
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret
O. Szczur, J.), entered June 18, 2014 in proceedings pursuant to
Family Court Act article 6.  The order, among other things, directed
that the subject child shall continue to reside with respondent Gayle
Brynette.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petitions are
reinstated, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County,
for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: 
On appeal from an order directing, inter alia, that her child continue
to reside with his paternal grandmother, respondent Gayle Brynette
(grandmother), petitioner mother contends that Family Court erred in
failing to make a determination of extraordinary circumstances before
rendering a decision on the best interests of the child and that the
record does not support a finding of extraordinary circumstances.  We
agree with the mother that the court erred in failing to make a
determination whether extraordinary circumstances existed to warrant
an inquiry into the best interests of the child.  “It is well
established that, as between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has
a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent
establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of
surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like
extraordinary circumstances . . . The nonparent has the burden of
proving that extraordinary circumstances exist, and until such
circumstances are shown, the court does not reach the issue of the

-2-
1169    
CAF 14-01333 
best interests of the child” (Matter of Gary G. v Roslyn P., 248 AD2d
980, 981 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Howard v
McLoughlin, 64 AD3d 1147, 1147-1148).  “The foregoing rule applies
even if there is an existing order of custody concerning that child
unless there is a prior determination that extraordinary circumstances
exist” (Gary G., 248 AD2d at 981; see Matter of Katherine D. v
Lawrence D., 32 AD3d 1350, 1351, lv denied 7 NY3d 717; Matter of
Vincent A.B. v Karen T., 30 AD3d 1100, 1101, lv denied 7 NY3d 711).
Here, as in Howard, “there is no indication in the record that,
in the history of the parties’ litigation, the court previously made a
determination of extraordinary circumstances divesting the mother of
her superior right to custody” (64 AD3d at 1148).  Furthermore,
because the hearing transcript, which was transcribed from an audio
recording, is riddled with “unintelligible” gaps in the testimony,
“the record is insufficient to enable us to make our own determination
with respect to whether extraordinary circumstances exist” (id.).  We
therefore reverse the order, reinstate the petitions, and remit the
matter to Family Court to determine, following a hearing if necessary,
whether extraordinary circumstances exist.
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1171    
CA 16-00522  
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.     
                                                            
                                                            
ANITA L. CASTRO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,                      
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
PROFESSIONAL GOLF SERVICES, INC., DOING 
BUSINESS AS SARATOGA SPA GOLF, 
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
                     
CHELUS, HERDZIK, SPEYER & MONTE, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL M. CHELUS OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SMITH, MINER, O’SHEA & SMITH, LLP, BUFFALO (PHILIP J. O’SHEA, JR., OF
COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.                                    
                           
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paula L.
Feroleto, J.), entered January 14, 2016.  The order granted a new
trial on damages for past and future pain and suffering and future
medical expenses unless the parties stipulate to specified increases
in damages.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from an order that granted
plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict on damages in this
personal injury action.  The jury awarded plaintiff, inter alia, the
sum of $200,000 for past pain and suffering, $100,000 for future pain
and suffering, and $125,000 for future medical expenses.  Supreme
Court vacated those parts of the award and ordered a new trial on the
issue of damages for past and future pain and suffering and future
medical expenses unless the parties stipulated to increase the award
to $300,000 for past pain and suffering, $600,000 for future pain and
suffering and $207,850 for future medical expenses.  Contrary to
defendant’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in
granting plaintiff’s motion.  “Although a jury’s assessment of damages
generally is afforded great deference and will not be overturned
unless it deviates materially from what would be reasonable
compensation . . . , ‘the trial court retains the discretion to set
aside a verdict under appropriate circumstances’ ” (Carter v Shah, 31
AD3d 1151, 1151; see CPLR 5501 [c]; Warnke v Warner-Lambert Co., 21
AD3d 654, 657).  Here, “ ‘[g]iven [the court’s] superior opportunity
to evaluate the proof and the credibility of the witnesses,’ ” we
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that the award of damages should be increased (Carter, 31 AD3d at

-2-
1171    
CA 16-00522  
1151-1152; see generally Prunty v YMCA of Lockport, 206 AD2d 911,
912).  
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1177    
CA 16-00010  
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.     
                                                            
                                                            
BARBARA TULLY, ALSO KNOWN AS BARBARA BIELLE, 
PLAINTIFF,     
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
TRANSITOWN SOUTH ASSOCIATES, LLC, TRANSITOWN 
PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC, GIAN PROPERTIES, LLC, 
AND GIAN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
DEFENDANTS.       
---------------------------------------------------       
TRANSITOWN SOUTH ASSOCIATES, LLC, TRANSITOWN 
PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC, GIAN PROPERTIES, LLC, 
AND GIAN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
V
                                                            
TIGER STRIPE, LLC, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
         
KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (RICHARD T. SARAF OF
COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL RIEHLER OF COUNSEL), FOR
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.                                    
                    
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M.
Siwek, J.), entered October 8, 2015.  The order, insofar as appealed
from, granted that part of the motion of defendants-third-party
plaintiffs seeking an order requiring third-party defendant to defend
and indemnify them and pay their attorneys’ fees.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is
unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and that part of the
motion of defendants-third-party plaintiffs seeking an order requiring
third-party defendant to defend and indemnify them and pay their
attorneys’ fees is denied. 
Memorandum:  Third-party defendant, Tiger Stripe, LLC (Tiger
Stripe), appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted in part the
motion of defendants-third-party plaintiffs (defendants) for summary
judgment and ordered Tiger Stripe to defend and indemnify defendants
and pay their attorneys’ fees.  Tiger Stripe contends that defendants
failed to establish as a matter of law that they are entitled to
contractual indemnification.  We agree.  The snow-removal services

-2-
1177    
CA 16-00010  
contract required Tiger Stripe to indemnify defendants against claims
“arising out of or resulting from performance of services under [the]
Contract,” including claims attributable to bodily injury “caused in
whole or in part by acts or omissions” of Tiger Stripe.  Inasmuch as
there are issues of fact concerning the alleged culpability of Tiger
Stripe, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of
the motion (see Johnson v Wal-Mart, 125 AD3d 1468, 1469; Pieri v
Forest City Enters., 238 AD2d 911, 913). 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1178    
TP 16-00740  
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.       
                                                            
                                                            
IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD BROWN, PETITIONER,                  
                                                            
V
ORDER
                                                            
ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, 
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 
AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT.                                 
               
EDWARD BROWN, PETITIONER PRO SE.  
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                              
                 
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial
Department by order of the Supreme Court, Seneca County [Dennis F.
Bender, A.J.], entered May 2, 2016) to review a determination of
respondent.  The determination found after a tier III hearing that
petitioner had violated an inmate rule.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously
confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1180    
KA 14-01244  
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.       
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
ORDER
                                                            
TYLER GETMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
                         
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KRISTIN M. PREVE OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.  
MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (JULIE
BENDER FISKE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                              
                            
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M.
William Boller, A.J.), entered June 9, 2014.  The judgment revoked
defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of
imprisonment.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1181    
KA 15-00645  
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.       
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
JOSHUA D. MCCARTHY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.                    
(APPEAL NO. 1.)                                             
                                                            
DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.  
DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                              
                     
Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M.
Mohun, J.), rendered December 4, 2014.  The judgment convicted
defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated criminal contempt,
menacing a police officer or peace officer, and attempted aggravated
assault upon a police officer or a peace officer.  
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the judgment insofar
as it imposed sentence on the conviction of menacing a police officer
or peace officer is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is
affirmed.
Memorandum:  In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment
convicting him upon his plea of guilty of aggravated criminal contempt
(Penal Law § 215.52), menacing a police officer or peace officer 
(§ 120.18), and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer or
a peace officer (§§ 110.00, 120.11) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals
from the resentence imposed on the conviction of menacing a police
officer or peace officer.  Contrary to defendant’s contention in
appeal No. 1, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily,
and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v
Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver forecloses any
challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence and resentence
(see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827;
People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). 
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1182    
KA 15-01384  
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.       
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
JOSHUA D. MCCARTHY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.                    
(APPEAL NO. 2.)                                             
                                                            
DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.  
DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                              
                     
Appeal from a resentence of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M.
Mohun, J.), rendered February 11, 2015.  Defendant was resentenced
upon his conviction of menacing a police officer or peace officer.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Same memorandum as in People v McCarthy ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d
___ [Dec. 23, 2016]).
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1183    
KA 15-00435  
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.       
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
DECARLO WORTH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
                         
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R.
LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                     
                        
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah
A. Haendiges, J.), rendered October 23, 2014.  The judgment convicted
defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the first
degree.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the first degree
(Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.30 [2]).  Contrary to his contention, the
record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently
waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,
256), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge to the severity
of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92
NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).
Entered:  December 23, 2016
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1184    
KA 14-00459  
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.       
                                                            
                                                            
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,            
                                                            
V
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
                                                            
ANTOINE GARNER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
                       
THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.  
MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A.
HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.                                    
                         
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case,
J.), rendered May 14, 2013.  The judgment convicted defendant, upon a
jury verdict, of strangulation in the second degree and assault in the
third degree.  
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed. 
Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
upon a jury verdict of strangulation in the second degree (Penal Law 


Download 3.95 Mb.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   19




Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2020
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling