Appellant's first contention is that he was required to answer questions propounded pursuant to section 480 before being questioned as to his waiving the statutory requirement under section 472. We find this contention to be without merit. He next contends that after being charged with an information pursuant to section 1943 of the Penal Law, he should have again been questioned in accordance with section 480. The defendant was represented by counsel in all stages of the...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
