People v. Ochs
792 N.Y.S.2d 248
N.Y. App. Div.2005Check Treatmentthose thought
The user wants me to convert two pages of a legal document into clean, semantic HTML.
**Page 1 analysis:**
- It starts with the end of a previous case (page 971). I should skip this partial content as per the “Multi-Opinion Documents” rule.
- A new case starts: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Charles Ochs, Appellant. [792 NYS2d 248]“.
- Citation: `792 NYS2d 248`.
- Date: March 31, 2005.
- Judge: Peters, J.
- Text: Describes a burglary case where the defendant appeals his sentence as a second felony offender.
- Citations to be wrapped:
- `CPL 400.21 [3]` -> ``
- `People v Smith, 73 NY2d 961, 962-963 [1989]` -> ``
- `People v Bates, 299 AD2d 727, 729 [2002]` -> ``
- `lv denied 99 NY2d 626 [2003]` -> subsequent history
- `People v Johnson, 266 AD2d 728, 729-730 [1999]` -> ``
- `lv denied 94 NY2d 881 [2000]` -> subsequent history
- `CPL 400.21` -> ``
**Page 2 analysis:**
- Continues the Ochs case.
- Citations:
- `Penal Law § 70.06` -> ``
- `People v Bouyea, 64 NY2d 1140, 1142 [1985]`
- `People v Stewart, 307 AD2d 533, 535-536 [2003]`
- `People v Chrysler, 260 AD2d 945, 945 [1999]`
- `People v Bachman, 272 AD2d 718, 719 [2000]`
- `lv denied 95 NY2d 903 [2000]`
- `People v Crippa, 245 AD2d 811, 812 [1997]`
- `lv denied 92 NY2d 850 [1998]`
- `People v Barton, 200 AD2d 888, 888 [1994]`
- `lv denied 83 NY2d 849 [1994]`
- The opinion for Ochs ends with a concurrence/order: “Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.”
- A new case starts: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas P. Ladd, Appellant. [792 NYS2d 246]“.
- Per the “Multi-Opinion Documents” rule: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
- Wait, the rule says “If the document contains multiple opinions ... convert only the MAIN opinion ... skip partial content from a previous case ...“.
- In the provided screenshots, the first complete opinion is *People v. Ochs*. The document starts with the tail end of another case. I will skip the tail end and convert *People v. Ochs*.
- The second opinion *People v. Ladd* starts at the bottom of page 972. I should focus on the first complete one (*Ochs*). However, usually, if I‘m given multiple pages, I should check if I should convert all complete cases. Looking at the prompt: “Convert the provided legal document...“. If it has multiple, I should probably prioritize the first complete one. The “Multi-Opinion Documents” section says “skip partial content from a previous case ... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
- Let‘s process *People v. Ochs*.
**Metadata for People v. Ochs:**
- Case Name: The People of the State of New York v. Herbert Charles Ochs
- Short Name: People v. Ochs
- Citation: 792 N.Y.S.2d 248
- Court: N.Y. App. Div. (3rd Dept based on the judges listed: Cardona, Mercure, Peters, Carpinello are common for 3rd Dept around 2005. The OCR doesn‘t explicitly state the court name, but the style is New York Appellate Division, Third Department. I will check the abbreviation. Usually “N.Y. App. Div.” or “A.D.3d“. Given the reporter AD2d/AD3d, it‘s App. Div.)
- Date: 2005-03-31
- Judge: Peters, J.
**Citations details:**
- `People v Smith, 73 NY2d 961, 962-963 [1989]` -> case=“People v. Smith” cite=“73 N.Y.2d 961” pinpoint=“962-963” court=“N.Y.” date=“1989”
- `People v Bates, 299 AD2d 727, 729 [2002]` -> case=“People v. Bates” cite=“299 A.D.2d 727” pinpoint=“729” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2002”
- `lv denied 99 NY2d 626 [2003]` -> case=“People v. Bates” cite=“99 N.Y.2d 626” court=“N.Y.” date=“2003”
- `People v Johnson, 266 AD2d 728, 729-730 [1999]` -> case=“People v. Johnson” cite=“266 A.D.2d 728” pinpoint=“729-730” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“1999”
- `lv denied 94 NY2d 881 [2000]` -> case=“People v. Johnson” cite=“94 N.Y.2d 881” court=“N.Y.” date=“2000”
- `People v Bouyea, 64 NY2d 1140, 1142 [1985]` -> case=“People v. Bouyea” cite=“64 N.Y.2d 1140” pinpoint=“1142” court=“N.Y.” date=“1985”
- `People v Stewart, 307 AD2d 533, 535-536 [2003]` -> case=“People v. Stewart” cite=“307 A.D.2d 533” pinpoint=“535-536” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2003”
- `People v Chrysler, 260 AD2d 945, 945 [1999]` -> case=“People v. Chrysler” cite=“260 A.D.2d 945” pinpoint=“945” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“1999”
- `People v Bachman, 272 AD2d 718, 719 [2000]` -> case=“People v. Bachman” cite=“272 A.D.2d 718” pinpoint=“719” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2000”
- `lv denied 95 NY2d 903 [2000]` -> case=“People v. Bachman” cite=“95 N.Y.2d 903” court=“N.Y.” date=“2000”
- `People v Crippa, 245 AD2d 811, 812 [1997]` -> case=“People v. Crippa” cite=“245 A.D.2d 811” pinpoint=“812” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“1997”
- `lv denied 92 NY2d 850 [1998]` -> case=“People v. Crippa” cite=“92 N.Y.2d 850” court=“N.Y.” date=“1998”
- `People v Barton, 200 AD2d 888, 888 [1994]` -> case=“People v. Barton” cite=“200 A.D.2d 888” pinpoint=“888” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“1994”
- `lv denied 83 NY2d 849 [1994]` -> case=“People v. Barton” cite=“83 N.Y.2d 849” court=“N.Y.” date=“1994”
**Hyphenated words to rejoin:**
- `fol- lowing` -> `following`
- `bur- glary` -> `burglary`
- `Subse- quently` -> `Subsequently`
- `of- fender` -> `offender`
- `de- fendant` -> `defendant`
- `consti- tuted` -> `constituted`
**Laws:**
- `Workers’ Compensation Law § 142 [1]` -> N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 142(1) (Wait, this is in the partial first case. I am skipping that).
- `CPL 400.21 [3]` -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 400.21(3)”
- `CPL 400.21` -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 400.21”
- `Penal Law § 70.06` -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Penal Law § 70.06”
**Structure:**
- ``
- ``
- Heading or text? The case title is “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Charles Ochs, Appellant.”
- Text starts with judge: “Peters, J.”
Let‘s double check the “Multi-Opinion Documents” rule.
“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.”
In the screenshots:
1. Top of 971: Partial case (skipping).
2. Middle of 971: People v. Ochs (converting).
3. Bottom of 972: People v. Ladd (this is a full case caption. Should I convert this too? The instructions say “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, this means the first full one found. But “MAIN” is singular. I‘ll stick to *People v. Ochs* as it‘s the first full one.)
Wait, let‘s look at the “Short Form” example: `shortName=“Doe v. Acme Corp.“`.
Metadata extraction:
Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v HERBERT CHARLES OCHS, Appellant.
shortName: People v. Ochs
docket: [N/A]
court: N.Y. App. Div.
date: 2005-03-31
citation: 792 NYS2d 248
judge: Peters, J.
The judge name on the first page is “Peters, J.”
The concurrency on the second page: “Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.”
One detail: `3Vs` in OCR for page 1. Looking at the image, it is `3 1/2`.
OCR says `3Vs`. I should correct it to `3 1/2` based on the image.
Another detail: OCR says `NYS2d248`. Image has a space `NYS2d 248`.
Let‘s refine the citations for NY.
`NY2d` is New York Reports, Second Series. `AD2d` is Appellate Division Reports, Second Series.
Court for NY2d is N.Y. Court of Appeals (abbrev: N.Y.).
Court for AD2d is N.Y. Appellate Division (abbrev: N.Y. App. Div.).
Wait, the prompt says: “If input is not a legal opinion, return only: null“. These are legal opinions.
Page 971:
``
The text of Ochs starts.
Title: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v HERBERT CHARLES OCHS, Appellant. [792 NYS2d 248]—
Wait, the prompt says “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“.
So the title line and reporter citation goes into ``.
The opinion text starts:
“Peters, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered September 20, 2001 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.”
Wait, there‘s a line before the text: `(March 31, 2005)`. This goes in metadata.
Paragraph 2: “In satisfaction of an 11-count indictment...”
Paragraph 3: “Defendant’s assertion that he was improperly sentenced...”
Page 972:
``
Sentence continues: “subject to sentencing as a second felony offender...”
Final paragraph: “In light of defendant’s admissions...”
Signature block-ish concurrence: “Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.”
I will include the concurrence as a paragraph since it‘s part of the standard appellate opinion format in NY.
One more check on the `People v. Ochs` citation. It‘s `792 NYS2d 248`.
The reporter is N.Y.S.2d. Court is N.Y. App. Div.
Let‘s begin.
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v HERBERT CHARLES OCHS, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York
March 31, 2005
792 N.Y.S.2d 248
Peters, J.
Peters, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered September 20, 2001 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.
In satisfaction of an 11-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the third degree. As part of the negotiated plea agreement, he was to receive a sentence of 3 1/2 to 7 years in prison as a second felony offender. Subsequently, defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to 3 to 6 years in prison and now appeals.
Defendant’s assertion that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender is not preserved for our review given his failure to timely controvert the allegations (see CPL 400.21 [3]; People v Smith, 73 NY2d 961, 962-963 [1989]; People v Bates, 299 AD2d 727, 729 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 626 [2003]; People v Johnson, 266 AD2d 728, 729-730 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 881 [2000]). In any event, although the predicate felony statement did not meet the technical requirements of CPL 400.21, defendant acknowledged during the plea hearing that he was subject to sentencing as a second felony offender pursuant to the plea agreement and, as such, could not receive less than the minimum prescribed sentence for a second felony offender. Moreover, defense counsel consented to the second felony offender statement and admitted on behalf of defendant that the prior felony conviction was valid (see Penal Law § 70.06). As defendant received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to the prior conviction, we find that there was substantial compliance with the statutory requirements (see People v Bouyea, 64 NY2d 1140, 1142 [1985]; People v Stewart, 307 AD2d 533, 535-536 [2003]; People v Chrysler, 260 AD2d 945, 945 [1999]).
In light of defendant’s admissions at the plea hearing, we are similarly unpersuaded by his contention that defense counsel’s failure to challenge the second felony offender statement constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Bachman, 272 AD2d 718, 719 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 903 [2000]). Viewing the record as a whole, defense counsel provided meaningful representation and negotiated a favorable plea bargain that significantly reduced defendant’s exposure to a lengthier prison term (see People v Crippa, 245 AD2d 811, 812 [1997], lv denied 92 NY2d 850 [1998]; People v Barton, 200 AD2d 888, 888 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 849 [1994]).
Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
```
Wait, I need to check the exact words.
“lv denied” usually is abbreviated like that in NY reports.
Wait, “3 1/2” is better than “3Vs“. The OCR had a stroke there.
One detail: `lv denied` in string citations often needs its own case tag or be part of the preceding one if it‘s strictly a subsequent history without a new cite. But here it has its own cite `99 NY2d 626`. So it gets a case tag.
Re-checking `People v Johnson` pinpoint. OCR: `729-730`. Yes.
`People v Smith` pinpoint: `962-963`. Yes.
Wait, looking at the OCR for Ochs name: `HERBERT CHARLES OCHS`.
The citation in OCR for page 1: `[792 NYS2d 248]—`
I‘ll put `792 N.Y.S.2d 248` in the metadata citation and omit the whole title line from the body.
The concurrency paragraph on 972: “Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.”
This fits the signature block or just a paragraph. Given it‘s a short appellate order, a paragraph is safer.
Wait, I should not convert *People v. Ladd*. The instructions say “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 this document, both *Ochs* and *Ladd* have complete captions. *Ochs* is first. I‘ll convert *Ochs*.
Wait, let‘s verify if `N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law` is the correct normalization for `CPL`. Yes, Criminal Procedure Law.
`N.Y. Penal Law` for `Penal Law`. Yes.
Case citations in New York often use brackets for the year `[1989]`. I will preserve the brackets in the inner text but keep the year in the `date` attribute.
Final check on page 971 OCR: “Defendant acknowledged during the plea hearing that he was” ... “subject to sentencing” on 972.
The break happens between “was” and “subject“.
“defendant acknowledged during the plea hearing that he was subject to sentencing”
Wait, the prompt asks for `midpage-ps` at word boundaries. Correct.
One final check: the OCR page 1 has “3Vs“. The image clearly shows “3 1/2“. I will use “3 1/2“.
Wait, the OCR for page 2: `[792 NYS2d 246]` is for the next case *Ladd*.
The Ochs case citation is `[792 NYS2d 248]`.
Let‘s do this.
```html
Case Information
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v HERBERT CHARLES OCHS, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York
March 31, 2005
792 N.Y.S.2d 248
Peters, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered September 20, 2001 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.
In satisfaction of an 11-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the third degree. As part of the negotiated plea agreement, he was to receive a sentence of 3 1/2 to 7 years in prison as a second felony offender. Subsequently, defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to 3 to 6 years in prison and now appeals.
Defendant’s assertion that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender is not preserved for our review given his failure to timely controvert the allegations (see CPL 400.21 [3]; People v Smith, 73 NY2d 961, 962-963 [1989]; People v Bates, 299 AD2d 727, 729 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 626 [2003]; People v Johnson, 266 AD2d 728, 729-730 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 881 [2000]). In any event, although the predicate felony statement did not meet the technical requirements of CPL 400.21, defendant acknowledged during the plea hearing that he was subject to sentencing as a second felony offender pursuant to the plea agreement and, as such, could not receive less than the minimum prescribed sentence for a second felony offender. Moreover, defense counsel consented to the second felony offender statement and admitted on behalf of defendant that the prior felony conviction was valid (see Penal Law § 70.06). As defendant received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to the prior conviction, we find that there was substantial compliance with the statutory requirements (see People v Bouyea, 64 NY2d 1140, 1142 [1985]; People v Stewart, 307 AD2d 533, 535-536 [2003]; People v Chrysler, 260 AD2d 945, 945 [1999]).
In light of defendant’s admissions at the plea hearing, we are similarly unpersuaded by his contention that defense counsel’s failure to challenge the second felony offender statement constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Bachman, 272 AD2d 718, 719 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 903 [2000]). Viewing the record as a whole, defense counsel provided meaningful representation and negotiated a favorable plea bargain that significantly reduced defendant’s exposure to a lengthier prison term (see People v Crippa, 245 AD2d 811, 812 [1997], lv denied 92 NY2d 850 [1998]; People v Barton, 200 AD2d 888, 888 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 849 [1994]).
Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
```
Wait, the shortName rule: “first party v. first opposing party, standard abbreviations, omit “et al.” and procedural phrases“.
So `People v. Ochs`.
The court name in `midpage-court`: OCR doesn‘t say “Third Department“, but I know it‘s Third Dept from the judges. However, the rule is “extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. I‘ll stick to what can be inferred or is explicitly in the header. The document doesn‘t have a header. I will use `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`.
One check on `People v. Chrysler`: `260 AD2d 945, 945 [1999]`. Correct.
Final check on the concurrence: “Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.”
The OCR for 971 has “Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur.” - that‘s for the previous case (Worker‘s Comp). I‘m skipping it.
The Ochs case concurrence is on 972. Correct.
One detail: `3Vs` in OCR. Image is `3 1/2`.
Actually, looking closely at the image for page 1, it‘s `3 1/2`.
The `V` in `3Vs` is a bad OCR of `1/2`.
Also, “bur- glary” -> “burglary“.
“Subse- quently” -> “Subsequently“.
“of- fender” -> “offender“.
“de- fendant” -> “defendant“.
“consti- tuted” -> “constituted“.
Citations normalization:
- `People v Smith, 73 NY2d 961, 962-963 [1989]` -> ``
Note: NY2d is usually “N.Y.2d“. I‘ll use “N.Y.2d“.
Check the starting page of Ochs case. It‘s page 971.
The caption starts after `(March 31, 2005)`.
There is a black block above it, then a bullet point: `■`.
The bullet point content: `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v HERBERT CHARLES OCHS, Appellant. [792 NYS2d 248]—`
I will skip the bullet and the trailing dash as decorative.
I will also correctly pinpoint `lv denied` cases as separate tags since they have different citations.
```html
People v Bates, 299 AD2d 727, 729 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 626 [2003]
```
Wait, the `case` name for the `lv denied` cite is the same. Correct.
One last check: `Workers’ Compensation Law § 142 [1]` at the top of 971. That is part of the previous case. Skipping.
OK, ready.