Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Robert B. Sherman, William E. Hellerstein and Diana A. Steele for appellant in the first above-entitled action.
Nicholas Ferraro, District Attorney (Martin L. Bracken of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Robert B. Sherman and William E. Hellerstein for appellant in the second above-entitled action.
Nicholas Ferraro, District Attorney (Martin L. Bracken of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action.
William J. Gallagher for appellant in the third above-entitled action.
Mario Merola, District Attorney, for respondent in the third above-entitled action.
William J. Gallagher for appellant in the fourth above-entitled action.
Mario Merola, District Attorney, for respondent in the fourth above-entitled action.
William J. Gallagher for appellant in the fifth above-entitled action.
Eugene Gold, District Attorney, for respondent in the fifth above-entitled action.
William J. Gallagher for appellant in the sixth above-entitled action.
Richard H. Kuh, District Attorney (Edward A. McDonald, Lewis R. Friedman and Judith K. Rubenstein of counsel), for respondent in the sixth above-entitled action.
Robert B. Sherman, William E. Hellerstein and Hillard Wiese for appellant in the seventh above-entitled action.
Nicholas Ferraro, District Attorney (Martin L. Bracken and Jenny M. Maiolo of counsel), for respondent in the seventh above-entitled action.
William E. Hellerstein for appellant in the eighth above-entitled action.
Nicholas Ferraro, District Attorney (Martin L. Bracken of counsel), for respondent in the eighth above-entitled action.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, RABIN and STEVENS concur. Judge STEVENS taking no part in People v. Torres.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
JASEN, J.
In each of these cases, it is claimed that the statutory right1 of the defendant to be asked if he wishes to make a statement at the time of sentencing was in some manner abridged, We conclude that there was substantial compliance with the statutory requirement and, accordingly, affirm the orders appealed from.
The modern day allocution requirement can be understood...
NEVER MISS A DECISION. START YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.
Uncompromising quality. Enduring impact.
Your support ensures a bright future for independent legal reporting.
As you are aware we have offered this as a free subscription over the past years and we have now made it a paid service.Look forward to your continued patronage.
GET STARTED
OR
