Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

People v. Benson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 30, 2004

6 A.D.3d 1173; 775 N.Y.S.2d 694; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6282

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

SWICK, DONALD, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Swick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Swick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Bald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Julie A.C. v. Michael F.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Data-track Account Services, Inc. v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Fontanez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered December 17, 2002. The judgment revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposes sentence be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Because defendant failed to move to withdraw his admission to a violation of probation or to vacate the judgment of conviction, he has failed to preserve for our review his contention that his admission was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered (see People v Sawinski, 294 AD2d 667, 668 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 701 [2002]; People v Viruet, 288 AD2d 407 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 710 [2002]; People v Woods, 281 AD2d 929 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 870 [2001]). In any event, that contention is without merit. Because defendant has completed serving the sentence imposed, his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe has been rendered moot (see People v Parente, 4 AD3d 793 [2004]; People v James, 269 AD2d 845, 846 [2000]; People v Griffin, 239 AD2d 936 [1997]). We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it does not require reversal. Present—Pigott, Jr., EJ., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.