From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1992
187 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 16, 1992

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contentions that the indictment failed to provide him with fair notice of the charges and that some of the counts were duplicitous are unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to dismiss the indictment on those grounds prior to the entry of judgment (see, People v Webb, 177 A.D.2d 524; People v Barrett, 166 A.D.2d 657; People v Caban, 129 A.D.2d 721; CPL 200.30, 210.20 Crim. Proc., 210.25 Crim. Proc., 210.45 Crim. Proc., 255.10 Crim. Proc., 255.20 Crim. Proc.).

The sentence imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1992
187 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Gonzalez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. OMAR GONZALEZ…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 16, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Woodley

second degree, were duplicitous (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Becoats, 17 N.Y.3d 643, 650; People v …

People v. Woodley

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that counts 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, and…