People v. Joaquin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Apr 5, 2016

728 2906/08

Versions:138 A.D.3d 422

27 N.Y.S.3d 860

2016 NY Slip Op 02579

enlightenment The user wants me to convert a legal document from two provided screenshots and OCR text into semantic HTML. ### Analysis of the document: 1. **Page 1 (OCR 422):** * Starts mid-paragraph of an opinion. This seems tо be the end of a previous case. * The previous case involves “Martin P. Unger‘s and Blank Rome, LLP‘s motions to dismiss” and “Chelsea Piers L.P. v Hudson Riv. Park Trust“. * Then, a new case header appears: “The Peоple of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anibal Joaquin, Appellant. [27 NYS3d 860]“. * The instruction for Multi-Opinion Documents says: “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.” * Therefore, I should skip the first two paragraphs on page 422. * The case to convert is *People v. Joaquin*. * Case details for *People v. Joaquin*: * Case name: The People of the State of New York v Anibal Joaquin * Short name: People v. Joaquin * Court: Supreme Court, Bronx County (per the judgment line) and then decided by the Appellate Division, First Department (standard for these reporter pages). Looking at the justices “Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Gische аnd Gesmer, JJ.“, this is the NY Appellate Division, First Department. * Citation: 27 NYS3d 860 (and internal pagination 422). * Date: Judgment was May 23, 2011, but this decision date is not explicitly on this page, however, these are typically grouped. I will look for other metadata. The reporter page is 422. * Docket: Not explicitly stated, though often NY cases use docket numbers like “1391 1060/09“. I‘ll use what‘s available. 2. **Page 2 (OCR 423):** * Continues the *Joaquin* opinion. * Ends *Joaquin* opinion with “Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.” * Starts a new case: “Metropolitan Bridge & Scaffolds Corp., Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant. [27 NYS3d 862]“. * This is another full case. The instructions say “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, this means the first full one or the one the user is interested in. In this context, where several short memo opinions are presented together, I will convert the first full one: *People v. Joaquin*. * Wait, the instruction says: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a comрlete case caption and full opinion body.” * *People v. Joaquin* starts on 422 and ends on 423. * *Metropolitan Bridge & Scaffolds Corp. v. New York City Housing Authority* starts on 423 and ends on 423. * *In the Matter of Patricia Gill v. Mеrcy College* starts on 423. * I will focus on *People v. Joaquin* as the primary complete opinion starting in the provided text (ignoring the snippet at the top of 422). ### Case Information for *Peoplе v. Joaquin*: - Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anibal Joaquin, Appellant. - Short Name: People v. Joaquin - Citation: 27 NYS3d 860 - Court: N.Y. App. Div. - Date: Not explicitly given in the text рrovided, though typically these reporter pages include it. I‘ll omit the date attribute if not found, or infer year from judgment date (2011) and citation (27 NYS3d is 2016). Actually, NYS3d Vol 27 is 2016. I‘ll stick to provided text metadata. - Internal рagination: 422, 423. ### Content of *People v. Joaquin*: - Start: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anibal Joaquin, Appellant. [27 NYS3d 860]—” - Judgment/Trial Court info paragraph. - Paragraph 1: “The court рroperly exercised its discretion...” - Paragraph 2: “The particular portion of the prosecutor’s summation...” - Paragraph 3: (Page 423) “v Overlee...” - Paragraph 4: “We perceive no basis...” - Concurrence list. ### Reflow Check: - “unanimously af-\nfirmed” -> “unanimously affirmed” - “chal-\nlenges” -> “challenges” - “af-\nfirmative” (in the first snippet I‘m skipping) - “Hi--\nTech” -> “Hi-Tech” (one dash looks like a line break hyphen, the other is рart of the name. Actually, it‘s Hi-Tech). ### Citations: - `People v Mejias, 21 NY3d 73, 79 [2013]` - `People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]` - `People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]` - `People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]` ### Laws: - None obvious in this case. ### Formatting Joaquin Opinion: - `` - `

` - Opinion content. - `` inside the sentence. Wait, looking at the instruction “convert only the MAIN opinion“. In these memo reporter volumes, each entry is a separate opinion. I‘ll convert *Peоple v. ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍Joaquin*. Let‘s refine the metadata. Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. Short: App. Div. Let‘s start drafting. ```html

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (James M. Kindler, J.), rendered May 23, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it dеclined to conduct an inquiry into whether jurors had engaged in premature ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍deliberations, and we note that the court repeatedly reminded the jury that such deliberations are not permitted (seе People v Mejias, 21 NY3d 73, 79 [2013]). The application for an inquiry was based on two jurors’ alleged body language, which was observed by defense counsel but not the court, and from which the inference of premature deliberations was speculative in any event.

The particular portion of the prosecutor’s summation to which defendant objected on the ground of “denigrating the defense” was generally responsive to defendant’s summation, and does not warrant reversal. Defendant’s ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍remaining challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we similarly find no basis for reversal (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Any improprieties were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍J.P., Friedman, Richter, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

``` Wait, I should check the `shortName` logic. “First party v. first opposing party“. The People v. Anibal Joaquin -> People v. Joaquin. Correct. One detаil: `[27 NYS3d 860]—` in the header. I will put the citation in the metadata. Check for rejoined hyphens: - “unanimously affirmed” (422) - rejoins “af-\nfirmed“. - “challenges” (422) - rejoins “chal-\nlenges“. Check for other cases: The user promрt says: “If the document contains multiple opinions... 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.” Technically, *Joaquin* is the first full one. *Metropolitan Bridge* and *Gill* also have complete captions. Usually, in this context, “MAIN opinion” refers to the primary subject if it‘s a single case file, but here it‘s a reporter page. If I have to pick one, I‘ll pick the first full one. However, often these tasks expect all complete opinions on the page. But the instruction says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. I will provide the *People v. Joaquin* case. Actually, looking at “Multi-Opinion Documents” again: “If the document cоntains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning оf the document.” This usually implies there is one case being searched for. Since I don‘t have a specific request for one of the three complete opinions, I will provide the first full onе which is *Joaquin*. Wait, `[27 NYS3d 860]` is a citation. I will include it. Note on `midpage-court` attribute: Bluebook for NY Appellate Division, First Department is `N.Y. App. Div.`. Let‘s refine the citations for Joaquin: - `People v Mejias, 21 NY3d 73, 79 [2013]` `сase=“People v. Mejias“` `cite=“21 NY3d 73“` `pinpoint=“79“` `court=“N.Y.“` `date=“2013“` - `People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997]` `case=“People v. Overlee“` `cite=“236 AD2d 133“` `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“` `date=“1997“` - `lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]` `case=“People v. Overlee“` `cite=“91 NY2d 976“` `court=“N.Y.“` `date=“1998“` - `People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992]` `case=“People v. D’Alessandro“` `cite=“184 AD2d 114“` `pinpoint=“118-119“` `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“` `date=“1992“` - `lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]` `case=“People v. D’Alessandro“` `cite=“81 NY2d 884“` `court=“N.Y.“` `date=“1993“` - `People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]` `case=“People v. Crimmins“` `cite=“36 NY2d 230“` `court=“N.Y.“` `date=“1975“` I will add punctuation correctly outside the tags. One thing: The `21 NY3d 73` is a New York Reports, Third Series citation. Court is the Court of Appeals (highest court). Abbreviation `N.Y.`. `AD2d` is Appellate Division Reports, Second Series. Court is `N.Y. App. Div.`. Let‘s finalize the structure. Page 422: Starts with snippet (skip). Case info for Joaquin. judgment paragraph. court properly exercised discretion paragraph. The particular portion paragraph (starts on 422, continues to 423). Page 423: Continues Summation paragraph. Sentence perception paragraph. Concurrences. I will use straight quotes. One final check on “MAIN opinion“: if the file is a screenshot of multiple short opinions, usually I‘d convert all full ones if they are of equal wеight, but “convert only the MAIN opinion” and “Skip partial content” suggests a singular output. If there‘s no clear “main” one, the first complete one is the standard choice. Wait, looking at the OCR, the summation paragraph ends on 422 with “reversal (see People“. The word “People” is followed by a page break. Page 423 starts with “v Overlee“. So: `reversal (see ` Metadata for *Joaquin*: Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ANIBAL JOAQUIN, Appellant. Short: People v. Joaquin Docket: Not provided in text. Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department Citation: 27 NYS3d 860 Wait, looking at the snippet аt the top of 422: it contains a date “entered on or about October 8, 2014” and “December 22, 2014“. The decision for *Joaquin* likely happened around 2016 (based on 27 NYS3d). The text provided doesn‘t have thе Joaquin decision date. I will omit `date` from `

` if not in source. Final check on rejoined words: “unanimously af- / firmed” -> “unanimously affirmed” “chal- / lenges” -> “challenges” Summation paragraph: “...basis for reversal (see People” [End of 422] “v Overlee...” [Start of 423] Let‘s go.