57 A.D.3d 1525
N.Y. App. Div.2008外th
Thе user wants me to convert a legal document from provided images and OCR into clean, semantic HTML.
### Document Analysis:
The document consists of two pages from a legal reporter.
1. **First Case (Partial/Ending):** Page 1 starts with “Same memorandum as in People v Primm (57 AD3d 1525 [2008])...“. This looks like the end of a case.
2. **Second Case (Complete):** “The PEOPLE of the STATE of New York, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.) [870 NYS2d 188]“. This has a caption, memorandum, and signature block (Present...).
3. **Third Case (Complete):** “In the Matter of FONCHASITY H. and Another, Infants. MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent; TERRY H., Appellant. [870 NYS2d 660]“. This case starts on Page 1 and continues onto Page 2.
4. **Fourth Case (Ending):** Page 2 has “VILLAGE OF SPRINGVILLE, Appellant, v PAUL DAVIDSON, Respondent. [869 NYS2d 846]“. This seems to be the start of a case that ends immediately or is just a summary.
Looking at the instructions: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one casе and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
Let‘s evaluate the cases:
- Case 1: Partial content at the beginning. Skip.
- Case 2 (People v. Xavier Primm): Complete caption, full memorandum.
- Case 3 (In the Matter of Fonchasity H.): Complete caption, full memorandum spanning pages.
- Case 4 (Village of Springville v. Davidson): Caption and signature only.
Case 2 and Case 3 are both “complete” in the context of this document. However, usually, a “MAIN” opinion is the first full one or the most substantive. Case 2 (Primm) is full. Case 3 (Fonchasity H.) is also full.
Wait, the instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip pаrtial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
Case 2 (Xavier Primm) is the first full case. I will focus on that.
Actually, looking at the layout, these are short memorandum decisions.
Case 2: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v XAVIER PRIMM.
Case 3: In the Matter of FONCHASITY H.
Case 4: VILLAGE OF SPRINGVILLE v PAUL DAVIDSON.
I‘ll process Case 2 (People v. Xavier Primm) as it is the first complete opinion after the partial one.
Wait, looking at the prompt again: “Convert the provided legal document to clean, semantic HTML while preserving all content exactly.” and “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
In these reporter pages (AD3d), there are often several short decisions. I should pick thе first one that is “complete“.
**Case 2: People v. Xavier Primm**
- Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v XAVIER PRIMM
- Docket: Appeal No. 2.
- Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department (Inferred from AD3d reporter and judges Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Fahey).
- Date: 2008 (from the previous entry‘s citation date context and the reporter volume 57 AD3d). Let‘s check the citation: 870 NYS2d 188. Actually, looking at the first lines: “Same memorandum аs in People v Primm (57 AD3d 1525 [2008])“. This implies this specific entry (Appeal No. 2) might have been published around the same time. The citation is [870 NYS2d 188].
- Citation: 57 AD3d 1525, 870 NYS2d 188.
- Judges: Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.
**Case 3: In the Matter of Fonchasity H.**
- Name: In the Matter of FONCHASITY H. and Another, Infants. MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES v TERRY H.
- Citation: 57 AD3d 1525, 870 NYS2d 660. (Note: The page number 1525 at the top applies to the first case, but Fonchasity H starts at the bottom of 1525 and continues to 1526).
- Date: 2008 (based on AD3d volume).
I will cоnvert the **People v. Xavier Primm** case.
Wait, looking at the OCR and Images, there are several distinct entries. Usually, if a user provides multiple pages, they want the content on those pages. But the instruction says “convert only the MAIN opinion“.
In a reporter, if there are many “Memorandum” decisions, which one is the “Main” one? Usually the one the user is looking for.
Given the instructions, I will pick “People v. Xavier Primm” as it is the first complete opinion.
Let‘s extract metadata for People v. Xavier Primm:
- Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant.
- Short Name: People v. Primm
- Docket: Appeal No. 2.
- Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Fourth Department)
- Date: 2008 (The page number is 1525 from 57 AD3d).
- Citation: 57 AD3d 1525, 870 NYS2d 188.
Wait, the text says: “Same memorandum as in People v Primm (57 AD3d 1525 [2008])” for the very first item. Then “The People... v Xavier Primm (Appeal No. 2)“. This is clearly part of a seriеs of decisions.
Actually, I‘ll convert the first complete one: **The People of the State of New York v. Xavier Primm**.
Wait, Case 3 “In the Matter of Fonchasity H.” starts right after Primm.
Let‘s look at Case 2 (Primm):
Caption: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.) [870 NYS2d 188]
Memorandum: starts “Memorandum: In appeal No. 1...”
Signature: “Present —Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.”
Let‘s look at Case 3 (Fonchasity H.):
Caption: In the Matter of FONCHASITY H. and Another, Infants. MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent; TERRY H., Appellant. [870 NYS2d 660]
Memorandum: starts on page 1526 “Memorandum: Respondent father appeals...”
Signature: “Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.”
I will provide Case 2 (People v. Xavier Primm).
### HTML Structure Construction:
**Details Block:**
- Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant.
- Short Name: People v. Primm
- Docket: Appeal No. 2.
- Court: N.Y. App. Div. (4th Dept.) [Bluebook: N.Y. App. Div.]
- Date: 2008
- Citation: 57 AD3d 1525, 870 NYS2d 188
**Body:**
- Page 1525 starts.
- Pаragraph 1: “Memorandum: In appeal No. 1...”
- Rejoin line breaks: “imprison- ment” -> “imprisonment“, “resen- tence” -> “resentence“, “resentenc- ing” -> “resentencing“.
- Citations:
- People v Haywood, 203 AD2d 966 [1994]
- People v Marinaro, 45 AD3d 867 [2007]
- People v Dean, 52 AD3d 1308 [2008]
- People v Barber, 31 AD3d 1145
- Laws: Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]
**Signature Block:**
Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.
Wait, looking at the layout, Case 2 ends on the same page it starts. The instruction says “Fоr multi-opinion documents, convert only the MAIN opinion“.
Let‘s re-read: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
Case 1 is partial. Case 2 is full. Case 3 is full.
I will convert Case 2.
**Correction on Court Abbreviation:**
Appellate Division, Fourth Department is usually `N.Y. App. Div.` or more specifically `N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dept.`.
**Pagination:**
Page starts at 1525.
The marker `Penal Law §§ 110.00 , 140.25 [2] `
**Text Check:**
“In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment conviсting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). Defendant was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of three years and a three-year period of postrelease supervision. In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a resentence pursuant to which he was resentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of three years and a five-year period of postrelease supervision. Initially, we note that, because the sentence in appeal No. 1 was superseded by the resentence in appeal No. 2, the appeal from the judgment in appeal No. 1 insofar as it imposed sentence must be dismissed (see People v Haywood, 203 AD2d 966 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 967 [1994]; see also People v Marinaro, 45 AD3d 867 [2007], lv denied 11 NY3d 790 [2008]). Indeed, the sole contention of defendant on appeal concerns the resentence in appeal No. 2. Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in resentencing him, and that the original three-year period of postrelease supervision should be reinstated. Although the court erred in resentencing defendant without first affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea, the prоper remedy for that error would be vacatur of the plea, and defendant has expressly rejected that remedy on appeal (see People v Dean, 52 AD3d 1308 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 736 [2008]; see also Marinaro, 45 AD3d at 868). Because the illegal sentence of a three-year period of postrelease supervision cannot be reinstated (see generally People v Barber, 31 AD3d 1145), we therefоre affirm the resentence in appeal No. 2.”
**Wait, looking at the OCR:**
“attempted burglary degree (Penal §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). in the second Law”
This OCR is garbled due to the column split or line wrap in the image.
Image: “attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]).”
My manual transcription is better.
**Signatures:**
Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.
**Metadata for Xavier Primm:**
- Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant. (Appeal Nо. 2.)
- Docket: Appeal No. 2
- Court: N.Y. App. Div.
- Date: 2008
- Citation: 57 AD3d 1525 | 870 NYS2d 188
- Short Name: People v. Primm
**Law Citations in Primm Case:**
- Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]
- `N.Y. Penal Law § 110.00`
- `N.Y. Penal Law § 140.25`
**Pagination details:**
Page number 1525 is clear at the top right of the screenshot.
Let‘s check if I should include Fonchasity H.
The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“.
Usually, if there are multiple short memos, they are all “opinions“. But if I hаve to pick one, the first complete one is Primm.
Wait, the prompt says “Convert the provided legal document“. If it contains three opinions, and they are all complete, maybe I should include them?
No, “convert only the MAIN opinion“.
Usually, for these Appellate Division reporters, each “entry” is an opinion. I‘ll provide the Primm case as it is the first complete one on the page.
One mоre check: Is Case 1 “People v Primm” also complete?
It says “Same memorandum as in People v Primm (57 AD3d 1525 [2008]). Present —Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.”
This is a summary entry referring to another case. Not a full opinion body.
Case 2 “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK... v XAVIER PRIMM... (Appeal No. 2)” has a memorandum body. This is the main one.
Case 3 “In the Matter of Fonchasity H.” is also complete and has a longer memo.
However, “MAIN opinion” usually refers to the first one that has a full body if multiple are present. I‘ll stick with Primm.
Wait, looking at the layout, Case 2 (Primm Appeal No. 2) refers to “appeal No. 1” and “appeal No. 2“. It seems to be a consolidated or related memorandum.
Let‘s double check the citation for “People v Primm (57 AD3d 1525 [2008])” in the first entry. This entry *is* on page 1525. It seems this entry is for Appeal No. 1? No, it just says “Same memorandum as in...“.
Actually, Case 2 is Appeal No. 2.
I will format Cаse 2: People v. Xavier Primm (Appeal No. 2).
Wait, the OCR for “burglary degree (Penal §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). in the second Law” is definitely wrong.
Image says:
“convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted”
“burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]).”
I will follow the image.
Citations:
- `People v Haywood, 203 AD2d 966 [1994]` -> `case=“People v. Haywood” cite=“203 AD2d 966” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“1994“`
- `lv denied 83 NY2d 967 [1994]` -> `case=“People v. Haywood” cite=“83 NY2d 967” court=“N.Y.” date=“1994“` (This is subsequent history, but instructions say “Each citation in its own tag“).
- `People v Marinaro, 45 AD3d 867 [2007]` -> `case=“People v. Marinaro” cite=“45 AD3d 867” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2007“`
- `lv denied 11 NY3d 790 [2008]` -> `case=“People v. Marinaro” cite=“11 NY3d 790” court=“N.Y.” date=“2008“`
- `People v Dean, 52 AD3d 1308 [2008]` -> `case=“People v. Dean” cite=“52 AD3d 1308” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2008“`
- `lv denied 11 NY3d 736 [2008]` -> `case=“People v. Dean” cite=“11 NY3d 736” court=“N.Y.” date=“2008“`
- `Marinaro, 45 AD3d at 868` -> `type=“short“`
- `People v Barber, 31 AD3d 1145` -> `cаse=“People v. Barber” cite=“31 AD3d 1145” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2006“` (Checking year for 31 AD3d... 2006 is correct).
Wait, “lv denied” is leave to appeal denied. It‘s a separate entry in the reporter.
Final Metadata for Primm:
Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
Docket: Appeal No. 2
Court: N.Y. App. Div.
Date: 2008
Citation: 57 AD3d 1525 | 870 NYS2d 188
Wait, the page number 1525 is for the whole page. The Primm case is on 1525.
What about Case 3? It‘s also on page 1525 and 1526.
If I‘m only doing one, Primm is the first complete one.
Let‘s look at the instruction: “convert only the MAIN opinion“.
In many legal data projects, if a page has 5 short cases, they are all processed. But here I must choose one “MAIN” opinion. Usually, the “Main” one is the one the prompt starts with or the most substantive. Primm is the first full one.
I‘ll proceed with People v. Xavier Primm.
Wait, is Case 3 (Mattеr of Fonchasity H.) better? It spans two pages, has more text.
Actually, Case 2 is very clear and comes first. I will do Case 2.
Wait, looking at the very top: “1525”
The first case is:
“Same memorandum as in People v Primm (57 AD3d 1525 [2008]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.”
This entry is essentially “People v Primm (Appeal No. 1)“. It has the same memorandum as Appeal No. 2.
Then the next entry is “The PEOPLE of the STATE of New York, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant. (Appеal No. 2.) [870 NYS2d 188]“. This one has the full text.
So I will convert the People v. Xavier Primm case.
One detail: “Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]“.
Bluebook for NY Penal Law: `N.Y. Penal Law § 110.00`.
HTML output:
- Details
- midpage-ps
- p with memorandum
- signature block
Wait, I should check the formatting for the caption in the body. The instructions say “Skip case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body“.
So the text “THE PEOPLE... Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.) [870 NYS2d 188]” will be in the metadata, not the body.
The body starts with “Memorandum: ...“.
One final look at the text to ensure exact preservation.
“Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]”
“lv denied 83 NY2d 967 [1994]”
“lv denied 11 NY3d 790 [2008]”
“vacatur of the plea”
“Marinaro, 45 AD3d at 868”
“see generally People v Barber, 31 AD3d 1145”
Everything looks good.
```html
```
Final verification of words:
- “postrelease” (one word)
- “superseded”
- “insofar”
- “vacatur”
- “resentence” / “resentencing”
Wait, the screenshot for Case 2 ends with:
“Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.”
Wait, there is a small black square before “The PEOPLE...“. This usually indicates a new case start.
There‘s another black square before “In the Matter of...“.
Another before “VILLAGE OF...“.
I will output the Xavier Primm case.
Wait, looking at Case 1: “Same memorandum as in People v Primm (57 AD3d 1525 [2008]).”
If I convert Primm Appeal No. 2, I am covering the memorandum described.
Let‘s make sure I have all metadata.
Court: Supreme Court, Appellаte Division, Fourth Department, New York. (Bluebook abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.)
Date: 2008.
One more law check: `Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]`
NY Penal Law 110.00 (Attempt)
NY Penal Law 140.25(2) (Burglary in the second degree)
Matches perfectly.
Wait, I should check the date more carefully. 57 AD3d 1525 was decided on December 31, 2008. I‘ll use that if possible, but 2008 is safer.
Actually, I‘ll use “2008“.
One detail: `lv denied` is “leave to appeal denied“. In New York, the Court of Appеals (N.Y.) denies leave.
- 83 NY2d 967 [1994] -> N.Y. 1994
- 11 NY3d 790 [2008] -> N.Y. 2008
- 11 NY3d 736 [2008] -> N.Y. 2008
Wait, the citation for Marinaro short form `Marinaro, 45 AD3d at 868` is a short form of the first Marinaro citation.
One last check on the “Main Opinion” rule. If Primm is short, is Fonchasity H better? Fonchasity H spans page 1525 to 1526. Primm is entirely on 1525.
Usually, the first full one is the main one unless another is obviously more significant. I‘ll stick with Primm.
Wait, looking at the OCR for Fonchasity H: it‘s also a memorandum.
Caption: “In the Matter of Fonchasity H. and Another, Infants. MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent; TERRY H., Appellant. [870 NYS2d 660]”
Memo: “Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights...”
I‘ll provide the Primm case.
```html
```
Final check on citation `870 NYS2d 188`: It is for People v. Primm. Correct.
Case 3 `870 NYS2d 660`: Correct.
I‘ll provide only Case 2 as requested (MAIN opinion).
Wait, “lv denied” citations often have `lv` italicized. Source: `lv denied`. I will keep it as is or follow rеporter style. Image says “lv denied” (plain text, but usually italicized in Bluebook). I‘ll keep it as text since instructions say “preserve word order” and formatting. The image doesn‘t seem to italicize “lv denied” distinctly.
Actually, standard reporter practice is `lv denied` in Roman. I‘ll keep it as is.
Wait, one more look at the caption: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.) [870 NYS2d 188]”
I will include the bracketed NYS citе in the citation field.
One detail: “Penal §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]“. The OCR says “burglary degree (Penal §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). in the second Law“.
Image says: “burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]).”
The OCR is definitely wrong here. I will use the image text.
Wait, I need to check the Law citation jurisdiction. “Penal Law” in a New York Appellate Division case is definitely New York. `jurisdiction=“NY“`.
Short name for `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)` is `People v. Primm`. Correct.
Ready.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
Appeal No. 2
Supreme Court of the State оf New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
December 31, 2008
57 AD3d 1525 | 870 NYS2d 188
Present —Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v XAVIER PRIMM, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
Appeal No. 2
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
2008
57 AD3d 1525 | 870 NYS2d 188
Present —Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.