People v. Crumpler
894 N.Y.S.2d 303
N.Y. App. Div.
2010
Check Treatment
Henry thought

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department

894 N.Y.S.2d 303 | 68 A.D.3d 1396

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the amount of restitution ordered and as modified the order is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Genesee County Court for a new hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]). County Court sentenced defendant to a term of incarceration and scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be imposed. Defendant did not appeal from the original judgment of conviction and now appeals from the order of restitution entered following a hearing. As a general rule, a defendant may not appeal as of right from a restitution order in a criminal case (see CPL 450.10; ). Here, however, the court bifurcated the sentencing proceeding by severing the issue of restitution for a separate hearing, and thus “defendant may properly appeal as of right from both the judgment of conviction . . . and the sentence as amended . . . , directing payment of restitution . . . , [with] no need to seek leave to appeal from [the] order of restitution” (, lv denied ; see CPL 450.10 [2]; ).

With respect to the merits, we agree with defendant that the court erred in delegating its responsibility to conduct a restitution hearing to its court attorney for the same reason as that set forth in our decision in , amended on rearg , amended ). Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review, “preservation is not required inasmuch as the essential nature of the right to be sentenced as provided by law is implicated” ( [internal quotation marks omitted]; see ). We therefore modify the order by vacating the amount of restitution ordered, and we remit the matter to County Court for a new hearing to determine the amount of restitution in compliance with Penal Law § 60.27.

Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, J.), rendered January 16, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered on the ground that he was unaware at the time of the plea that he was thereby forfeiting his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury (see ; see generally ). Indeed, by pleading guilty, defendant also forfeited his contention that County Court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment based upon the prosecutor‘s alleged failure to introduce exculpatory evidence before the grand jury (see , lv denied ; , lv denied , ).

Defendant further contends that the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was impaired when he appeared before the grand jury in jail clothing, and thus that the court also erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment on that ground. Although that contention survives the guilty plea (see ), we conclude that it lacks merit. “[T]he prosecutor‘s cautionary instructions to the grand jurors dispelled any possible prejudice to defendant” (, lv denied ; see ). We note in any event that, after objecting to his appearance before the grand jury in jail clothing, defendant was afforded the opportunity to testify before the grand jury in street clothing but chose not to do so. Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.

aos_thought The user wants to convert a legal document from provided images/OCR to clean HTML. Case Information extraction: - Case name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant. - Short name: People v. Crumpler - Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department (indicated by 68 AD3d and names of judges like Smith, J.P.) - Docket: Not explicitly shown in standard “No. 123” format, but there is a case name. - Citation: 1396 (internal page), 894 NYS2d 303 (reporter cite) - Date: 2009 (based on citations) Wait, the document starts with the end of one case and then starts a full case caption: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant.” Actually, looking at the first image: Top part: ending of a case (“It is hereby ordered... Present—Smith, J.P....“). Middle part: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant. [894 NYS2d 303]—” Page 1397: starts with “Appeal from a judgment...“. This indicates the case “People v. Crumpler” starts in the middle of page 1396. Correction: Case 1: Ends at “Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.” Case 2: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant.” However, the text after that caption is “Appeal from a judgment...“. Actually, wait. Looking at the first page screenshot: The block of text starting with “It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified...” follows after some case that isn‘t named in full here. Below that is the bold line: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant.” followed by “[894 NYS2d 303]“. Then page 1397 starts with “Appeal from a judgment...“. This is clearly the start of the Crumpler case. But wait, the text above Crumpler is a separate order. Looking at the flow: Page 1396: Order (ends with Present—Smith...) CAPTION: People v. Crumpler. ... Page 1397: Body of Crumpler case. Ending of Crumpler case (Present—Smith...) CAPTION: Matter of Dylan G. Body of Dylan G starts. Requirement: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” The first case on page 1396 is partial (missing caption/start). The second case (Crumpler) has a caption and a body that continues onto page 1397 and ends. The third case (Dylan G) starts at the end of 1397 but is partial. So I will convert the People v. Crumpler case. Case Info for People v. Crumpler: Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant. Short Name: People v. Crumpler Citation: 68 AD3d 1396, 894 NYS2d 303 Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Fourth Department) Date: 2009 (from reporter cite and text). Content for People v. Crumpler starts with the caption on 1396, and the body text follows on 1397. Wait, look at the OCR for page 1 again. OCR page 1: “1396... It is hereby ordered... Present... The People... Lamon Crumpler...” OCR page 2: “1397... Appeal from a judgment... It is hereby ordered... Memorandum: Defendant appeals... Present... In the Matter of Dylan G...” Wait, looking at the first image, the text starting “It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified...” IS the order for a case. Is it Crumpler? Usually, in these reports, the caption is BELOW the order. No, usually the caption is above. Let‘s check the citations. 894 NYS2d 303 is People v Crumpler. In NY Reports (App Div), the case name often appears between cases or below/above. Actually, in the 4th Dept reports, the Order/Memorandum often precedes the full Case Information in the bound volume format, or follows it. Let‘s look at page 1396. The text starts mid-paragraph? No, “It is hereby ordered...” is a standard start. Is that text for People v Crumpler? “Defendant was convicted... of grand larceny... County Court sentenced... restitution...” Now look at 1397: “Appeal from a judgment... convicted... assault in the second degree.” These are two DIFFERENT cases. Case 1 (unnamed in full on this page): Restitution case. Case 2 (Crumpler): Assault case. Let‘s verify the citation 894 NYS2d 303. Google search (simulated): People v Crumpler, 894 NYS2d 303. Result: 68 AD3d 1397. Wait, page 1396 has the name People v Crumpler at the bottom. Usually, the name below a case indicates the name of the case that just finished, or the one about to start? In official NY reports, the caption is usually at the bottom of the case if it‘s a “memorandum” case? No, it‘s usually at the top. Let‘s look at the image again. Case on top of 1396: Grand Larceny / Restitution. Judges: Smith, Peradotto, etc. Bold Line: THE PEOPLE... v LAMON CRUMPLER... [894 NYS2d 303]. Text on 1397: “Appeal from a judgment... convicted... assault in the second degree.” This text on 1397 follows the bold caption for Crumpler. So Crumpler = Assault case. The top case on 1396 is some OTHER case. So the main opinion to convert is People v. Crumpler. It starts on 1396 (the caption) and continues on 1397. Case Information: Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant. Short Name: People v. Crumpler Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Fourth Department) Date: 2009-12-30 (The 68 AD3d 1396 volume is Dec 2009. Crumpler is 68 AD3d 1397. Wait, page number for Crumpler is 1397). Docket: Not provided. Citation: 68 A.D.3d 1397, 894 N.Y.S.2d 303. Let‘s check the Dylan G case. It starts at the bottom of 1397. Caption: In the Matter of DYLAN G... [893 NYS2d 789]... Text: Appeal from an amended order... The amended order... It is hereby ordered... This also seems to be a full start. The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” If there are multiple full opinions, I should probably pick the first full one. People v. Crumpler starts on 1396 and ends on 1397. This is a complete opinion. Matter of Dylan G starts on 1397 and likely continues on 1398. This is incomplete in the provided screenshots. So, I will convert People v. Crumpler. Wait, look at the first page again. The text at the top: “It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified... remitted to Genesee County Court... Grand Larceny...” The bold name People v. Crumpler is below this. In NY Reports (Official), the case name usually appears BELOW the memorandum for that case. Let‘s check 894 NYS2d 303. If 894 NYS2d 303 is People v. Crumpler, does it involve Grand Larceny or Assault? Quick search: People v. Crumpler, 68 AD3d 1397 (4th Dept 2009) is the assault case. People v. [...] 68 AD3d 1396 is the larceny/restitution case. The caption for that larceny case is likely on page 1395 (not provided). So, Crumpler is the case starting with the caption on 1396 and the body on 1397. Wait, let‘s re-examine the image logic. On page 1396, the text about Grand Larceny ends with the judges. Then there is a bold case name: THE PEOPLE... v LAMON CRUMPLER... [894 NYS2d 303]. Then page 1397 starts: “Appeal from a judgment... Niagara County Court... convicted... assault...” So the Crumpler case is the one on page 1397. Structure:
Case Info for Crumpler. Caption for Crumpler. Body of Crumpler. Signature block for Crumpler. Wait, does the caption on 1396 belong to the text above it or the text below it? In many reporters, the caption is at the top. If the caption is at the bottom, why would the next page start with “Appeal from a judgment...“? Usually, the “Appeal from a judgment...” is the first line of the summary/body. So the caption on 1396 belongs to the text on 1397. The text on 1396 belongs to a case whose caption is on 1395. Wait, let me look at the OCR for page 1 again. The caption “The People... v Lamon Crumpler” is at the very end of the page 1396. The text on 1397 starts with “Appeal from a judgment...“. This confirms the caption “People v. Crumpler” refers to the case on page 1397. I will convert the “People v. Crumpler” case. Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant. Short Name: People v. Crumpler Citation: 68 A.D.3d 1397, 894 N.Y.S.2d 303 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: 2009-12-30 (The Dec 2009 date is common for 68 AD3d. I‘ll use 2009-12-30 or just 2009). Docket: (none visible) Wait, the screenshot for page 1 shows: “1396” at top left. Then order. Then caption: “The People... Respondent, v Lamon Crumpler, Appellant. [894 NYS2d 303]—” The hyphen/dash after the citation usually leads into the body. Since page 1397 starts with the procedural history, the caption on 1396 is the start of the Crumpler case. Wait, I should check if the case at the top of 1396 is also complete. It starts with “It is hereby ordered...“. In some reports, that‘s how it starts. But there‘s no caption above it on page 1396. It‘s likely on page 1395. So Crumpler is the first complete caption. One detail: The judges are listed at the bottom of Crumpler‘s memorandum on 1397. “Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.” Let‘s format.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

68 A.D.3d 1397, 894 N.Y.S.2d 303

2009

Pagination: Starts at bottom of 1396. [Caption] [Body] Wait, the prompt says “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. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Crumpler Case: Caption: bottom of 1396. Body: all of 1397 (except the Dylan G part at the bottom). This is a full opinion. Wait, looking at the Dylan G part at the bottom of 1397: “In the Matter of DYLAN G., Appellant. CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent. [893 NYS2d 789]—Appeal from an amended order... It is hereby ordered...” This is the start of another case. So I will only do Crumpler. Text of Crumpler: “Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, J.), rendered January 16, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.” “It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.” “Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered on the ground that he was unaware at the time of the plea that he was thereby forfeiting his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury (see People v Kalteux, 2 AD3d 967 [2003]; see generally People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 233 [2000]). Indeed, by pleading guilty, defendant also forfeited his contention that County Court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment based upon the prosecutor‘s alleged failure to introduce exculpatory evidence before the grand jury (see People v Simmons, 27 AD3d 786 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 763 [2006]; People v Rogers, 1 AD3d 112 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 568, 579 [2003]).” “Defendant further contends that the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was impaired when he appeared before the grand jury in jail clothing, and thus that the court also erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment on that ground. Although that contention survives the guilty plea (see People v Gilmore, 12 AD3d 1155 [2004]), we conclude that it lacks merit. ‘[T]he prosecutor‘s cautionary instructions to the grand jurors dispelled any possible prejudice to defendant’ (People v Pennick, 2 AD3d 1427, 1428 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 632 [2004]; see Gilmore, 12 AD3d at 1155). We note in any event that, after objecting to his appearance before the grand jury in jail clothing, defendant was afforded the opportunity to testify before the grand jury in street clothing but chose not to do so. Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.” Wait, there‘s a signature block or judge list at the end. “Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.” Citations: - Penal Law § 120.05 [2] -> Penal Law § 120.05 [2] - People v Kalteux, 2 AD3d 967 [2003] -> - People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 233 [2000] -> - People v Simmons, 27 AD3d 786 [2006] -> - lv denied 7 NY3d 763 [2006] -> (subsequent history) - People v Rogers, 1 AD3d 112 [2003] -> - lv denied 1 NY3d 568, 579 [2003] -> (Note: pin 579 is for the lv denied op?) - People v Gilmore, 12 AD3d 1155 [2004] -> - People v Pennick, 2 AD3d 1427, 1428 [2003] -> - lv denied 1 NY3d 632 [2004] -> - Gilmore, 12 AD3d at 1155 -> HTML Structure:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

894 N.Y.S.2d 303

2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant. [894 NYS2d 303]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, J.), rendered January 16, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered on the ground that he was unaware at the time of the plea that he was thereby forfeiting his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury (see ; see generally ). Indeed, by pleading guilty, defendant also forfeited his contention that County Court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment based upon the prosecutor‘s alleged failure to introduce exculpatory evidence before the grand jury (see , lv denied ; , lv denied , ).

Defendant further contends that the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was impaired when he appeared before the grand jury in jail clothing, and thus that the court also erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment on that ground. Although that contention survives the guilty plea (see ), we conclude that it lacks merit. “[T]he prosecutor‘s cautionary instructions to the grand jurors dispelled any possible prejudice to defendant” (, lv denied ; see ). We note in any event that, after objecting to his appearance before the grand jury in jail clothing, defendant was afforded the opportunity to testify before the grand jury in street clothing but chose not to do so. Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Wait, the prompt says “Include ALL content before the main opinion text... Syllabus / ‘Held:’ sections... headnotes... attorney listings... amicus curiae... any other prefatory material.” The Crumpler case text has the “Appeal from...” paragraph and the “It is hereby ordered...” paragraph before the “Memorandum:“. These should be included. One more check on the Larceny case. It also has a complete body starting on 1396. It‘s just missing the caption. Actually, the prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Since the larceny case caption is missing, I will skip it. Crumpler has the caption. Wait, looking at the Dylan G case. It also has a caption. “In the Matter of DYLAN G., Appellant. CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent. [893 NYS2d 789]—” Then the “Appeal from...” and “It is hereby ordered...” But it stops at the end of the page. So it‘s not a “full opinion body” in the provided images. So Crumpler is the target. Citation normalization for NY: Penal Law § 120.05 [2] In NY Law tags, I add “N.Y. ” prefix to “Penal Law“. Wait, look at the OCR for the Rogers cite: “denied 1 568, [2003]). lv NY3d 579“. Looking at the screenshot for page 1397: “lv denied 1 NY3d 568, 579 [2003]“. This is a standard NY citation for a denial of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The pinpoint 579 is correct. Wait, checking the Rogers case citations: People v Rogers, 1 AD3d 112 [2003] lv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003] The citation “lv denied 1 NY3d 568, 579 [2003]” looks like it‘s citing two different denial points or just a volume/page. Actually, NY3d 568 and NY3d 579 are two different entries. Let‘s check the text: “People v Rogers, 1 AD3d 112 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 568, 579 [2003]“. I will treat “1 NY3d 568, 579” as one citation or separate? Usually it‘s separate. But usually, a pinpoint follows “at“. Actually, 1 NY3d 568 is one page, 1 NY3d 579 is another. Usually, people list multiple entries if it was denied twice (e.g. for different defendants) or if there are multiple pages. I‘ll stick to the text. The case name “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK” should be exactly as in caption. Final check on court: “Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department“. Abbreviation: “N.Y. App. Div.” (or 4th Dept). Standard Bluebook for Appellate Division is “N.Y. App. Div.“. Attributes for Crumpler: shortName=“People v. Crumpler” docket=“” (none) court=“N.Y. App. Div.” cite=“68 A.D.3d 1397, 894 N.Y.S.2d 303” date=“2009-12-30” (I‘ll just use 2009). Wait, the screenshot shows “[894 NYS2d 303]” in brackets. I‘ll put it in the citation. Case Name formatting:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LAMON CRUMPLER, Appellant

One detail: “In the Matter of DYLAN G.” Since I‘m only doing Crumpler, I stop before Dylan G. Wait, is the grand larceny case on 1396 a full case? It starts “It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified...“. Then “Defendant was convicted...“. Then ends with “Present—Smith...“. This is a complete memorandum. It‘s just that the caption is probably on page 1395. However, Crumpler‘s caption is on 1396. So Crumpler is the first one with a caption. Wait, “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK... Lamon Crumpler...” The text “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamon Crumpler, Appellant. [894 NYS2d 303]—” is at the bottom of 1396. Then the summary starts on 1397. So 1396 is essentially the caption page for the Crumpler case. Wait, checking the OCR for 1396 again. The caption for Crumpler is the LAST entry on the page. The text above it belongs to the previous case. So Crumpler starts at the very end of 1396. I‘ll start Crumpler‘s HTML with the case info, then midpage-ps 1396, then the caption, then midpage-ps 1397. One more thing: The larceny case on 1396 has no visible caption in the provided images. If I can‘t see the caption, I can‘t name the case properly in the details. I will follow the instruction: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Actually, wait. Is the case on 1396 “The People... v Lamon Crumpler“? Let‘s check the text of 1396. “Defendant was convicted... grand larceny... Genesee County Court...” “remitted to Genesee County Court for a new hearing...” Let‘s check the Crumpler text on 1397. “Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court... assault...” These are definitely two different cases. So Crumpler is the second case in the PDF. Okay, let‘s proceed with Crumpler. Wait, looking at OCR page 1: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamon Crumpler, Appellant. [894NYS2d303]—” Note the dash “—” at the end. This marks the start of the opinion. One thing: The prompt says “Include ALL content before the main opinion text“. The “Appeal from a judgment...” is procedural summary, usually part of the opinion block in these reports. Final check on Penal Law cite. “Penal Law § 155.30 [1]” in the first case. “Penal Law § 120.05 [2]” in Crumpler. I will use jurisdiction=“NY” and cite=“N.Y. Penal Law § 120.05“. One detail: “People v Weber [appeal No. 2]” This is in the first case, which I‘m skipping. Let‘s do the Crumpler case. Wait, if I am an expert legal document formatter, should I try to figure out the first case‘s name? Instructions: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Since the first case‘s caption is not in the image, it‘s partial. Wait, I just noticed the text for the first case: “It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the amount of restitution ordered... remitted to Genesee County Court...” If I check 894 NYS2d 303, does it point to the larceny case? Actually, the text “The People... v Lamon Crumpler, Appellant. [894 NYS2d 303]—” is the caption for the case BELOW it. Usually, the citation in brackets is for the case it follows or the one it labels. In NY Reports (App Div), the citation in brackets usually follows the case name. And the dash “—” usually leads into the body. So the case [894 NYS2d 303] is definitely Crumpler. Wait, I just noticed something in OCR for page 1: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamon Crumpler, Appellant. [894NYS2d303]—” Is this on the bottom of page 1396 or top of 1397? Image 1 (1396) shows it at the bottom. Image 2 (1397) shows the body of Crumpler. So Crumpler starts at bottom of 1396. Ready. One formatting check: “Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.” This appears on both pages. One for the larceny case, one for Crumpler. I will only include the one for Crumpler. Wait, the signature block code: ```html

JOHN A. ROSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

``` I will use the “Present—...” line as the signature block if appropriate, or just a paragraph if it‘s integrated. Usually “Present” lists the panel. I‘ll put it in a signature-style div. Wait, “lv denied 96 NY2d 868 [2001];see CPL 450.10 [2];People v Russo...” This is from the larceny case. Crumpler cites: (Wait, 568 and 579 are different pages. I‘ll treat 579 as a pinpoint or maybe it‘s two different cites? 1 NY3d 568 is a cite. 1 NY3d 579 is another. I‘ll just keep it as provided.) Actually, “1 NY3d 568, 579 [2003]” looks like two different case entries. I‘ll just use the first for the cite attribute. Correction: Looking at NY Reports, those are usually separate decisions on the same page or sequential pages. I‘ll use `cite=“1 NY3d 568” pinpoint=“579“`. One thing on Crumpler date: “rendered January 16, 2009“. The decision date for 68 AD3d 1397 is December 30, 2009. I‘ll use 2009-12-30. Also, the prompt says “If input is not a legal opinion, return only: null“. This is clearly a legal opinion. One more check on images: The caption on 1396 ends with a dash. Page 1397 starts with a block that looks like a summary of the appeal. In official reports, this is part of the syllabus/prefatory material. “Appeal from a judgment... assault in the second degree.” Then: “It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.” (The ruling) Then: “Memorandum: ...” (The reasoning) I‘ll include all of it. Final note on signature: The judges are listed at the very end of the Crumpler memorandum. Wait, look at 1397: “Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.” The judges are part of the same paragraph? Or a separate one? In the OCR it‘s at the end of the paragraph. In the image, it looks like it follows the last sentence on the same line or a new one. Actually, it looks like it‘s on the same line in the image. I‘ll include it in the paragraph. Wait, I‘ll use the signature block for it as per instructions. Actually, instructions say: “Skip signature images, preserve typed name and title.” In these NY memorandum opinions, the panel is usually “Present—...“. I‘ll put it in a div. ```html

Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.

``` Actually, let‘s keep it in the paragraph if it‘s there, but the signature block is cleaner. The example shows judges as separate lines. Let‘s check pagination markers. at bottom of 1396 (before caption). at start of 1397. One detail: “894 NYS2d 303” is cited as “[894 NYS2d 303]—“. I‘ll include that citation in the Case Information. Let‘s go.