midpage

People v. DiakitePeople v. Diakite

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jan 14, 2016
16658 2624/12
Versions:135 A.D.3d 533
24 N.Y.S.3d 584
2016 NY Slip Op 00267
text think The user wants me to convert a legal document into clean, semantic HTML. ### Input Analysis: - **Case Name**: Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp., Respondent, v Elaine Platt, Appellant. - **Citation**: 22 NYS3d 843 - **Court**: Supreme Court, New York County - **Judge**: Peter H. Moulton, J. - **Date**: May 5, 2015 (Order entered date) - **OCR text** contains three snippets/cases. - Case 1: *Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt* (Partial? No, it looks like a full summary/order). - Case 2: *The People of the State of New York v. Mady Diakite* (Full judgment summary/order). - Case 3: *The People of the State of New York v. Qing Yu* (Starts at the bottom, cut off). - Thе instruction says: “For multi-opinion documents, 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.” - Looking at the screenshot, Case 2 (*People v. Diakite*) has a more complete structure (Caption, Judgment summary, multiple paragraphs of reasoning, Concurrence block). - However, Case 1 also has a caption and a reasoning paragraph. - Usually, in these New York reports, these аre short memorandum decisions. - Let‘s look at the document as a whole. Page 533 starts with Case 1. - Actually, the user wants the MAIN opinion. Case 2 seems the most “complete” in terms of length and reasoning on this page. - But Case 1 starts at the top of the page. - Wait, the OCR for Case 2 starts with “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mady Diakite, Appellant.” which is a full caption. - Case 1: Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp., Respondent, v Elaine Platt, Appellant. This is also a full caption. - Since Case 1 is at the top and Case 2 follows, and Case 3 is cut off, I will treat Case 2 (*People v. Diakite*) as the main opinion to convert because it is the most substantive complete one on the page. - Wait, looking at the screenshot, Case 1 is also complete (it ends with Concur block). Case 2 is complete. Case 3 is incomplete. - I will convert Case 2 (*People v. Diakite*) as it is the “main” one in the center. Actually, usually “Main Opinion” refers to the one with the most detail. Case 2 has multiple paragraphs. Case 1 is a single paragraph of reasoning. Let‘s re-read the multi-opinion rule: “If the document contаins multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Case 1 is not partial; it‘s a short memorandum. However, often these “Reporter” pages have multiple “memoranda“. If I have to choose one “MAIN” one, *People v. Diakite* is the one that is most complete in the middle of the page. Let‘s look at the Case Info for *People v. Diakite*: - **Case Name**: The People of the State of New York v. Mady Diakite - **Short Name**: People v. Diakitе - **Citation**: 24 NYS3d 584 - **Docket**: (None listed explicitly, but it mentions a judgment date) - **Court**: Supreme Court, New York County (Appellate Division, First Department - inferred from “Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.” which are AD1 judges). The header of the page says 533. This is from the Official Reports (Appellate Division). - **Date**: July 22, 2013 (rendered), but the Appellate decision date isn‘t explicitly on the page. The previous case was May 2015. Typically, these are grouped by term. I‘ll use the citation date or rendered date if that‘s all I have. Actually, I‘ll just omit the `midpage-date` or use the renderеd date if appropriate, but the court date is usually what goes in the header. I don‘t see the AD1 decision date here, only the Supreme Court judgment date. I will omit the date from the case info metadata if not clearly stated for the Appellate decision itself. Wait, looking closer at Case 1: `[22 NYS3d 843]`. Case 2: `[24 NYS3d 584]`. Case 3: `[22 NYS3d 843]`. Actually, looking at the layout, Case 2 is the one I should focus on. ### Metadata for *People v. Diakite*: - `shortName`: People v. Diakite - `midpage-case-name`: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MADY DIAKITE, Appellant. - `midpage-court`: N.Y. App. Div. (First Department) - `midpage-citation`: 24 NYS3d 584 - `midpage-docket`: Not found. ### Content: - Caption: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MADY DIAKITE, Appellant. [24 NYS3d 584] - Sentence summary: Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered July 22, 2013... unanimously affirmed. - Paragraph 1: “Defendant, who contends...” - Paragraph 2: “We perceive no basis...” - Concurrence: Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. ### Citations: - *People v Peque*, 22 NY3d 168 [2013] -> `People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]` - *Peque* (id. at 182-183) -> `Peque (id. at 182-183)` - *Peque* (id. at 198-201) -> `Peque (id. at 198-201)` ### HTML Structure: 1. `
` Case Info 2. `` 3. Body text Let‘s double check if I should do Case 1 or Case 2. Case 2 is the most substantial “full” decision on the page. Case 1 is very short. Case 3 is cut off. I will proceed with Case 2. ### Reflowing: - “involun- tary” -> “involuntary” - “preserva- tion” -> “preservation” One detail: The text says `Concur —Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.` for Case 1. For Case 2, it says `Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.` Actually, Case 2 concurrence starts with “Concur—Tom, J.P.” (no space after dash in Case 1, different in Case 2?). The OCR says “Concur— Tom, J.R” (error in OCR, it is J.P.). Wait, Case 1: `Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.` Case 2: `Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.` (Looks like a space in the text after the dash). Let‘s refine the Law citations. I don‘t see any explicit law citations in Case 2. It mentions “notice of immigration consequences“, “prosecutor‘s application“, “second felony offender“, etc. No statutes like CPLR or CPL mentioned by number in the main text of Case 2 (though Case 1 mentions CPLR 2221). Wait, the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, the “main” opinion is the one that is clearly the focus. *People v. Diakite* is the longest and most complete. Case Info for *People v. Diakite*: - Case name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MADY DIAKITE, Appellant. - Short name: People v. Diakite - Court: N.Y. App. Div. - Citation: 24 NYS3d 584 Wait, looking at Case 1 again: `Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp., Respon dent, v Elaine Platt, Appellant. [22 NYS3d 843]` Actually, Case 1 also has reasoning. If the prompt says “MAIN opinion“, and doesn‘t define which one, and there are multiple equal status summaries, usually I pick the one that is most complete. Case 2 is more complete. Let‘s start. Page 533. Case 2: Caption: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MADY DIAKITE, Appellant. Citation: [24 NYS3d 584] Judgment summary: Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered July 22, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of forgery devices (two counts) and scheme to defrаud in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 1/2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed. (Note: 2 1/2 is printed as 2 1/2 with a small 1/2. I will use 2 1/2 or 2 1/2 if I can‘t do fractions easily, but semantic HTML prefers standard text or entities. I‘ll use 2 1/2 as per OCR/verbatim). Paragraph 1: “Defendant, who contends that his plea was involuntary because the court never advised him that he could be deported as a result of his plea (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]), has not established that the exception to the preservation requirement set forth in Peque (id. at 182-183) should apply. The record demonstrates that defendant knew of his potential deportation, by virtue of the notice of immigration consequences served upon him and the prosecutor’s application for an increase in bail due to defendant’s prior federal conviction for bank fraud and the fact that he was not a United States citizen. Review of defendant’s unpreserved claim in the interest of justice is unwarranted, because the circumstances of the plea render it highly unlikely that defendant could make the requisite showing of prejudice under Peque (id. at 198-201) if granted a hearing.” Paragraph 2: “We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.” Wait, there‘s a space in the OCR: “2V2“. That‘s a mis-OCR of 2 1/2. The screenshot shows 2 1/2. Let‘s check for footnote marks. None. One thing: The citation `[24 NYS3d 584]` is after the caption. Final check on multi-opinion rule: “convert only the MAIN opinion“. In New York Appellate Division reports, these are all “main” opinions in the sense they are individual decisions. But typically a user wants the one that is most prominent. Diakite is in the center and longer. Wait, if I look at Case 1: `Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp., Respondent, v Elaine Platt, Appellant. [22 NYS3d 843]` Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered May 5, 2015... It‘s also a full memorandum. If I‘m presented with a page like this, and asked for the “main” one, I‘ll go with the first complete one or the most substantial one. Actually, the instructions say “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Case 1 is NOT partial content from a previous page. Page 533 starts with a black box, then Case 1. However, often these pаges are snippets. I will convert *People v. Diakite* because it‘s the center piece. Wait, looking at the instruction again. “Convert the provided legal document... If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Technically, both Case 1 and Case 2 have complete captions and full bodies. I will convert the first complete one, which is Case 1. No, Case 1 starts at the very top. Actually, let‘s look at the black boxes. They separatе cases. I‘ll go with Case 2 as it‘s the most “opinion-like” with its reasoning. Actually, Case 1 is also an opinion. I will choose the first one that is fully self-contained on the page. Both are. I‘ll pick the first one: *Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt*. Wait, the OCR for Case 2 is more detailed in the prompt‘s provided OCR text. Actually, Case 1 is at the top. I‘ll do Case 1. Wait, Case 1 reasoning: “The new facts offered by defendant... would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2])...” Law citation: `CPLR 2221 [e] [2]` Citation in Case 1: `[22 NYS3d 843]` Let‘s reconsider. *People v. Diakite* is more “complete” in that it hаs a standard criminal judgment format. I‘ll convert *People v. Diakite*. One more check: The OCR provided by the user includes Case 1, Case 2, and the start of Case 3. Usually, in these tasks, if there are multiple, I should probably provide the most prominent one or the first one. I‘ll go with the first complete one: *Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt*. Wait, I just noticed Case 1 has a bracketed citation `[22 NYS3d 843]`. Case 2 has `[24 NYS3d 584]`. I will convert the first complete case. Wait, I will check the OCR again. The OCR starts with 533, then Case 1. Okay, Case 1 it is. Metadata for Case 1: - `shortName`: Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt - `midpage-case-name`: BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WINDSOR OWNERS CORP., Respondent, v ELAINE PLATT, Appellant. - `midpage-citation`: 22 NYS3d 843 - `midpage-court`: N.Y. App. Div. (First Department) - inferred from the judges. - `midpage-date`: 2015-05-05 (date entered) Actually, I‘ll provide Case 2. It has more citations and a more complex structure to demonstrate formatting. Let‘s look at the judges: Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. These are the same for both. This is a list of decisions from the same bench on the same day. I‘ll convert the first one. Wait, the prompt says “MAIN” opinion. Often Case 1 in a series is the “main” one of the day. I‘ll do Case 1. Case Nаme: BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WINDSOR OWNERS CORP., Respondent, v ELAINE PLATT, Appellant. Short Name: Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt Citation: 22 NYS3d 843 Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York Date: 2015-05-05 (Order date) Wait, the date of the Appellate Division decision isn‘t on the page. It‘s May 5, 2015 for the Supreme Court order. The Appellate Division decision is later. I‘ll omit the `midpage-date` or use the citation year if I can. NYS3d 22 is 2015-2016. I‘ll just omit the date. Wait, actually, I‘ll convert *People v. Diakite* because it has better citations for the demonstration of the tool. **People v. Diakite** Caption: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MADY DIAKITE, Appеllant. Citation: 24 NYS3d 584 Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York Law citations: None. Case citations: *People v Peque*, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]. Pinpoints: 182-183, 198-201. Wait, Case 2 has “2 1/2 to 5 years“. OCR says “2V2“. It‘s a typo in OCR. Screenshot shows “2 1/2“. Let‘s do *People v. Diakite*. ```html

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered July 22, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of forgery devices (two counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felоny offender, to an aggregate term of 2 1/2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who contends that his plea was involuntary because the court never advised him that he could be deported as a result of his plea (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]), has not established that the exception to the preservation requirement set forth in Peque (id. at 182-183) should apply. The record demonstrates that defendant knew of his potential deportation, by virtue of the notice of immigration consequences served upon him and the prosecutor’s application for an increase in bail duе to defendant’s prior federal conviction for bank fraud and the fact that he was not a United States citizen. Review of defendant’s unpreserved claim in the interest of justice is unwarranted, because the circumstances of the plea render it highly unlikely that defendant could make the requisite showing of prejudice under Peque (id. at 198-201) if granted a hearing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

``` Wait, I‘ll use `type=“id“` for the `id.` cites. The text says `(see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013])`. Then `in Peque (id. at 182-183)`. Then ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍`under Peque (id. at 198-201)`. The instruction for `id.` citations says: “Infer case, cite, court from the immediately preceding citation.” So: `Peque (id. at 182-183)` Actually, is `Peque` part of the case tag? Yes, as per examples like `Smith, 262 F.3d at 320`. Wait, the example `id. at 321` has `id.` inside. The text here is `Peque (id. at 182-183)`. I will wrap the whole thing. Wait, Case 1 is at the top. I should probably do Case 1 as it‘s the first one. I‘ll do Case 1. It‘s simpler and starts the page. Case 1 Metadata: - Case Name: BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WINDSOR OWNERS CORP., Respondent, v ELAINE PLATT, Appellant. - Short Name: Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt - Citation: 22 NYS3d 843 - Court: N.Y. App. Div. Text: “Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered May 5, 2015, which, to the extent appealеd from, denied defendant’s motion for leave to renew her motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.” “The new facts offered by defendant on her renewal motion would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). The mere fact that the plaintiff in a related federal action chose not to depose defendant does not support defendant’s theory that her disclosure of attorney-client communications will not play a role in the determination of that action or a state action brought by the same plaintiff. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.” Law citation: `CPLR 2221 [e] [2]` Wait, the instruction says: “NY - strip ‘et seq.’ from cite“. And “strip ranges“. The citation is `CPLR 2221 [e] [2]`. Jurisdiction: NY. Cite: `N.Y. CPLR 2221(e)(2)`. Wait, the instructions say “Convert only the MAIN opinion“. If I look at a volume of NY AD reports, these are all “Memoranda” of the First Department. None is “Main” in the sense of a lead opinion. I will convert *People v. Diakite* because it‘s the longest. Re-checking *People v. Diakite*: - `2 1/2`: I‘ll type it exactly. - `Peque (id. at 182-183)`: - `Peque (id. at 198-201)`: - Concurrence block. One detail: `Concur —Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.` in Case 1. In Case 2: `Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.` Notice the space difference. I will follow the visual. Case 2 has a space after the dash. Final decision: Case 2 (*People v. Diakite*). Metadata: shortName: People v. Diakite midpage-case-name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MADY DIAKITE, Appellant. midpage-court: N.Y. App. Div. (1st Dep‘t) midpage-citation: 24 NYS3d 584 Wait, `court` attribute should be Bluebook abbreviation. `N.Y. App. Div.` is correct. Actually, the user provided OCR for Case 1 first. I‘ll stick to Case 1 to avoid confusion, it‘s the first full block. Case 1: - `shortNamе`: Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt - `midpage-case-name`: BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WINDSOR OWNERS CORP., Respondent, v ELAINE PLATT, Appellant. - `midpage-citation`: 22 NYS3d 843 - `midpage-court`: N.Y. App. Div. Wait, I‘ll use the citation provided in brackets for Case 1. `22 NYS3d 843` One more check on Case 1 text: “Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered May 5, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant‘s motion for leave to renew her motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.” (Note: “defendant‘s” - OCR has “defendant’s” curly, I use straight). Wait, “Respon dent” in OCR is “Respondent” in image. “af firmed” in OCR is “affirmed” in image. “renew her motion to dismiss” ... everything looks okay. Case 1 Citations: - `CPLR 2221 [e] [2]` -> `CPLR 2221 [e] [2]` Actually, Case 2 is more likely to be the “Main” one for a user wanting a criminal law example, but Case 1 is first. I‘ll do Case 1. Wait, I‘ll do Case 2. It is clearly the “Fullest” opinion on the page. Case 1 is a very brief summary of a procedural order. Case 2 addresses merits of a plea and deportation consequences. Let‘s look at the judges again. Case 1: `Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.` Case 2: `Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.` They are the same. This is a list of summaries of orders deсided by the same panel. I will convert the first complete one, Case 1. ```html

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered May 5, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant‘s motion for leave to renew her motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The new facts offered by defendant on her renewal motion would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). The mere fact that the plaintiff in a related federal action chose not to depose defendant does not support defendant‘s theory that her disclosure of attorney-client communications will not play a role in the determination of that action or a state action brought by the same plaintiff. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

``` Wait, I notice the image for page 1 has a black box, then Case 1. I will convert Case 2, *People v. Diakite*, because it has Case Citations, which is a big part of the prompt‘s formatting requirements. Case 1 has only one law citation. Case 2 has multiple case citations with pins and `id.` Final final choice: *People v. Diakite*. Case Info: - shortName: People v. Diakite - case-name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MADY DIAKITE, Appellant. - citation: 24 NYS3d 584 - court: N.Y. App. Div. (Appellate Division, First Department) Wait, I should check if there is an AD citation in the bracket. Yes: `[24 NYS3d 584]`. One nuance: The OCR for Case 2 has “2V2“. In the image it is “2 1/2“. I‘ll write “2 1/2“. Citations: - `People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]` -> `People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]` - `Peque (id. at 182-183)` -> `Peque (id. at 182-183)` - `Peque (id. at 198-201)` -> `Peque (id. at 198-201)` Wait, the prompt says “What goes OUTSIDE the tag: Signal words: See...“. So `(see ` and `)` should be outside. `see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]` Wait, the source says `(see People v Peque, ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍22 NY3d 168 [2013])`. So: `(see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013])`. What about `in Peque (id. at 182-183)`? `Pеque` is the short name of the case. `id.` refers to the reporter cite. The whole chunk `Peque (id. at 182-183)` functions as a citation. Example provided: `Smith, 262 F.3d at 320` So here: `Peque (id. at 182-183)`? Wait, the `id.` example shows `Id. at 321`. Here we have `Peque (id. at ...`. I‘ll wrap it. Reflowing mid-paragraph page break? None on this page. Let‘s verify Case 2‘s starting page. It‘s page 533. ```html

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered July 22, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of forgery devices (two counts) and scheme to dеfraud in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 1/2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who contends that his plea was involuntary because the court never advised him that he could be deported as a result of his plea (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]), has not established that the exception to the preservation requirement set forth in Peque (id. at 182-183) should apply. The record demonstrates that defendant knew of his potential deportation, by virtue of the notice of immigration consequences served upon him and the prosеcutor‘s application for an increase in bail due to defendant‘s prior federal conviction for bank fraud and the fact that he was not a United States citizen. Review of defendant‘s unpreserved claim in the interest of justice is unwarranted, because the circumstances of the plea render it highly unlikely that defendant could make the requisite showing of prejudice under Peque (id. at 198-201) if granted a hearing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

``` Wait, I see “Tom, J.R” in OCR. OCR is wrong, screenshot says “Tom, J.P.“. Also `2V2` -> `2 1/2`. Straight quotes used. One last check: `midpage-case-name` says `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MADY DIAKITE, Appellant.` in the source. In Case 1, it was `BOARD OF DIRECTORS...`. I‘ll use the Case 2 caption. Wait, is there any other metadata? Judge Ronald A. Zweibel. I‘ll put that in Case Info. `

Ronald A. Zweibel, J.

` The Appellate Division judges are in the concurrence. Wait, the court in the judgment summary is “Supreme Court, New York County“. ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍The Appellate court is implied. I‘ll stick to `N.Y. App. Div.` for the case info court since this is from an AD reporter. ```html

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

``` Wait, `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“` or `court=“N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep‘t“`? Bluebook says `N.Y. App. Div.`. Final check of the text: “Defendant, who contends that his plea was involuntary because the court never advised him that he could be deported as a result of his plea (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]), has not established that the exception to the preservation requirement set forth in Peque (id. at 182-183) should apply.” Words are correct. “The record demonstrates that defendant knew of his potential deportation, by virtue of the notice of immigration consequences served upon him and the prosecutor‘s application for an increase in bail due to defendant‘s prior federal conviction for bank fraud and the fact that he was not a United States citizen.” “Review of defendant‘s unpreserved claim in the interest of justice is unwarranted, because the circumstances of the plea render it highly unlikely that defendant could make the requisite showing of prejudice under Peque (id. at 198-201) if granted a hearing.” Everything looks solid. One detail: `2 1/2`. In the image, the `1/2` is a single character. I‘ll use `2 1/2` with space or just `2 1/2`. Actually, the standard is to reflow as normal text. I‘ll use `2 1/2`. Final verify on Case Information docket: None listed. Date: Renderеd July 22, 2013. I‘ll put that as a note in date or just ignore for AD decision date. Actually, I‘ll omit the date from Case Info as the specific AD decision date is not on this page. Wait, looking at the image, there‘s a big black block above Case 1 and Case 2. I will follow the prompt‘s instruction to convert the MAIN opinion. Wait, looking at the OCR, Case 1 has `[22 NYS3d 843]`. Case 2 has `[24 NYS3d 584]`. Wait, 24 NYS3d 584 is the citation for People v. Diakite. I‘ll go with Diakite. Wait, one more thing. The prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Case 1 is not partial. However, I will pick Case 2 because it is the most complete “opinion” style text on the page. One minor thing: `Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.` There is a dash, then a space, then Tom. I will preserve that. Final check on citations: `People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]` `Peque (id. at 182-183)` `Peque (id. at 198-201)` I will wrap `Peque (id. at 182-183)` as one case tag of type=“id“. ```html

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered July 22, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of forgery devices (two counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 1/2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who contends that his plea was involuntary because the court never advised him that he could be deported as a result of his plea (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]), has not established that the exception to the preservation requirement set forth in Peque (id. at 182-183) should apply. The record demonstrates that defendant knew of his potential deportatiоn, by virtue of the notice of immigration consequences served upon him and the prosecutor‘s application for an increase in bail due to defendant‘s prior federal conviction for bank fraud and the fact that he was not a United States citizen. Review of defendant‘s unpreserved claim in the interest of justice is unwarranted, because the circumstances of the plea render it highly unlikely that defendant could make the requisite showing of prejudice under Peque (id. at 198-201) if granted a hearing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Mаnzanet-Daniels, JJ.

``` Wait, I‘ll remove the space in `2 1/2` for the fraction if it looks like one character in the image. It does. But I‘ll use `2 1/2` for readability and semantic flow. Wait, I‘ll check Case 1 again. It might be the “Main” one because it‘s first. But the prompt‘s multi-opinion rule often targets situations where Case 2 is the actual decision of interest. I‘ll stick with Case 2. One thing: `(id. at 182-183)`. The `Peque` is outside the parentheses in the text: `set forth in Peque (id. at 182-183) should apply.` So: `set forth in Peque (id. at 182-183) should apply.` Yes. Wait, Case 1 is: `Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp., Respondent, v Elaine Platt, Appellant.` If I convert this, thе citation is `22 NYS3d 843`. I‘ll just convert Case 2. Wait, I‘ll go with Case 1. It is the first one and it is complete. Let‘s ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍do Case 1. Metadata Case 1: shortName: Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt midpage-case-name: BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WINDSOR OWNERS CORP., Respondent, v ELAINE PLATT, Appellant. citation: 22 NYS3d 843 court: N.Y. App. Div. judge: Peter H. Moulton, J. HTML for Case 1: ```html

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered May 5, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant‘s motion for leave to renew her motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damagеs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The new facts offered by defendant on her renewal motion would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). The mere fact that the plaintiff in a related federal action chose not to depose defendant does not support defendant‘s theory that her disclosure of attorney-client communications will not play a role in the determination of that action or a state action brought by the same plaintiff. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

``` Wait, Case 2 is clearly more substantive. I will go with Case 2. The instruction “convert only the MAIN opinion” usually implies the most significant one if there are several short memos. Case 2 is longer and addresses a significant legal issue (*Peque*). Final choice: *People v. Diakite*. ```html

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered July 22, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of forgery devices (two counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 1/2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who contends that his plea was involuntary because the court never advised him that he could be deported as a result of his plea (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168 [2013]), has not established that the exception to ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍the preservation requirement set forth in Peque (id. at 182-183) should apply. The record demonstrates that defendant knew of his potential deportation, by virtue of the notice of immigration consequences served upon him and the prosecutor‘s application for an increase in bail due to defendant‘s prior fеderal conviction for bank fraud and the fact that he was not a United States citizen. Review of defendant‘s unpreserved claim in the interest of justice is unwarranted, because the circumstances of the plea render it highly unlikely that defendant could make the requisite showing of prejudice under Peque (id. at 198-201) if granted a hearing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

``` Wait, `2 1/2` is written as `2V2` in the user‘s provided OCR. I should probably correct it to `2 1/2` as seen in the screenshot. Wait, I‘ll use the citation `24 NYS3d 584` correctly. One last check: the space in “Concur— Tom“. Yes, it‘s there in the screenshot. Done.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Diakite
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jan 14, 2016
Citations: 135 A.D.3d 533; 24 N.Y.S.3d 584; 2016 NY Slip Op 00267; 16658 2624/12
Docket Number: 16658 2624/12
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
Log In