Matter of State of New York v. Jack D., 202 A.D.3d 1447 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2022). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of State of New York v. Jack D., 202 A.D.3d 1447 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2022). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Kelley, 2026 NY Slip Op 04569 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2026)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1448 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • People v. Kelley, 2026 NY Slip Op 04569 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2026).published 2 cites
    Here, the record establishes that the court made the requisite minimal inquiries with respect to defendant's requests, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying those requests ( see People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [201…
  • People v. Snell, 219 A.D.3d 1705 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2023).published
    Defendant did not raise that contention in his motion papers, during the hearing, or in his posthearing submission, and it is therefore not preserved for our review ( see People v Socciarelli , 203 AD3d 1556 , 1558 [4th Dept 2022], lv deni…
At page 1449 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • People v. B.Y.R.D., 225 A.D.3d 1168 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2024).published
    Defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective does not survive his guilty plea because defendant has not "demonstrate[d] that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] ent…
  • People v. Williams, 210 A.D.3d 1507 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2022).published
    Defendant's contention does not survive his guilty plea because defendant has not "demonstrate[d] that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorn…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matter of State of New York
v.
Jack D.
65 CA 20-01221.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 4, 2022.
Published opinion
202 A.D.3d 1447
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Matter of State of New York v Jack D. (2022 NY Slip Op 00764)
Matter of State of New York v Jack D.
2022 NY Slip Op 00764
Decided on February 4, 2022
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 4, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

65 CA 20-01221

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF STATE OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

v

JACK D., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.




ELIZABETH S. FORTINO, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, UTICA (PATRICK T. CHAMBERLAIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FREDERICK A. BRODIE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.



[*~1447–1448]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, A.J.), entered July 22, 2020 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, among other things, committed respondent to a secure treatment facility.

[*~1447–1449]

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on November 17, 2021,

[*~1448–1449]

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: February 4, 2022

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court