From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shaw

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 2, 1997
90 N.Y.2d 879 (N.Y. 1997)

Opinion

Argued June 5, 1997

Decided July 2, 1997

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department.

Kimberlianne Podlas, New York city, and Daniel L. Greenberg for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City ( Richard Nahas and Norma Barclay of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

That Court affirmed a judgment of conviction on a guilty plea and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal. The only issue relates to the imposition, expressly, in the judgment of the statutory surcharge applicable under since amended CPL 420.35 (2) and still extant Penal Law § 60.35 (1). The record demonstrates that defendant's argument, that the trial court failed or even improperly exercised any discretion it may have had, is unpreserved for failure to be raised at nisi prius.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Shaw

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 2, 1997
90 N.Y.2d 879 (N.Y. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Shaw

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE SHAW, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 2, 1997

Citations

90 N.Y.2d 879 (N.Y. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 824
684 N.E.2d 273

Citing Cases

People v. Montalvo

Defendant's offer of proof did not establish that the proposed expert testimony required "`professional or…

People v. Bowman

Contrary to defendant's contention, however, we conclude that the negotiated sentence is not unduly harsh or…