People v. Ferrer

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Smith

    49 A.D.3d 1032 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 7 times

    Furthermore, as our review of the record reveals no evidence that defendant relied on this information in entering his plea, we are convinced that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea ( see People v Wilkinson, 151 AD2d 801, 802, lv denied 74 NY2d 821). Finally, as both indictments are for offenses defined by the same statutory provision, we find that County Court acted within its discretion in consolidating the indictments pursuant to the People's application ( see CPL 200.20 [c]; [4]; People v Ferrer, 17 AD3d 777, 777, lv denied 5 NY3d 788).

  2. People v. Huebert

    30 A.D.3d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 8 times

    Defendant failed to object to the testimony of those detectives on that ground and thus failed to preserve his present contention for our review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 324; People v. Ferrer, 17 AD3d 777, 778, lv denied 5 NY3d 788; People v. Schutt, 174 AD2d 1035, lv denied 78 NY2d 1081). In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit.

  3. People v. Diven

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 33772 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)

    It is now well-settled that charges arising out of two distinct criminal transactions are properly joinable when the offenses are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions (see CPL 200.20[2][c]), subject only to a discretionary severance in the interest of justice and for good cause shown (see CPL 200.20[3]; People v Ferrer, 17 AD3d 777, 778). Here, as the defendant stands charged under Indictment No. 12-1215 with two charged counts of Grand Larceny in the second degree pertaining to his alleged theft, in his capacity as an attorney, of two distinct client's funds for his own purposes without the permission or consent of those clients, and is similarly charged under Indictment No. 14-0175 with a charged count of Grand Larceny in the second degree pertaining to his alleged theft, in his capacity as an attorney, of a third distinct client's funds for his own purposes without the permission or consent of that client, the Court finds that the instant indictments are properly joinable pursuant to CPL 200.20(2)(c) (see People vReome, 309 AD2d 1067, 1068, lv. denied 2 NY3d 805; People v McQueen, 266 AD2d 240; People v Rose, 187 AD2d 617; People vMoses, 169 AD2d 786; People vNdeye, 159 AD2d 397).