People v. Redding

Sep 8, 2009
Versions:
Pinkly thought: The user wants a clean, semantic HTML conversion of a legal document consisting of two pages. `1059` Ends with: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Redding, Appellant. [884 NYS2d 886]—` Starts with: `Appeal by the defendant from a judgment...` - Part 1: Continuation of an opinion (likely *People v. Rossetti* or similar, though the caption on page 1 is *People v. Redding*). Actually, looking at the layout, page 1 starts with the end of a previous case, then has a case caption for *People v. Redding*. - Part 2: Case Caption: *The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sean Redding, Appellant.* Citation: `[884 NYS2d 886]`. - Part 3: Opinion body for *People v. Redding*. - Part 4: Continuation on Page 2 for *People v. Redding*. - Part 5: Signature/Concurrence block for *People v. Redding*: `Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.` - Part 6: New case: *The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lucas Santana, Appellant.* Citation: `[885 NYS2d 240]`. - Part 7: Opinion body for *Santana*. - Part 8: Date: `(September 10, 2009)`. - Part 9: New case: *In the Matter of Erlene J. King, Respondent, v Board of Elections in City of New York, Appellant.* Citation: `[884 NYS2d 889]`. - Part 10: Opinion body for *King*. The instructions say: “Multi-Opinion Documents: 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.” Wait, the prompt says “Convert only the MAIN opinion... skip partial content from a previous case“. Looking at page 1: - The text starting “The defendant‘s waiver...” is partial content from a previous case. Skip it. - Case 1 (complete): *People v. Sean Redding*. Captions starts after the black bar on page 1. - Case 2 (complete): *People v. Lucas Santana*. - Case 3 (complete): *Matter of Erlene J. King*. Which one is the “Main” opinion? Usually, in these scenarios where multiple short memorandum decisions are presented, I should pick the first full one. Case 1: *People v. Sean Redding*. It has a caption, docket info (judgment date, court), opinion body, and concurrence. Case 2: *People v. Lucas Santana*. Very short. Case 3: *Matter of Erlene J. King*. I will convert the first full case: *People v. Redding*. Short Name: `People v. Redding` Docket: No specific number provided other than reporter/judgment info. The reporter citation is `884 NYS2d 886`. The judgment date is `January 14, 2004`. Court: `N.Y. App. Div.` (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department - inferred from judges like Spolzino, Covello, etc., though the text just says “Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.)” for the lower court). Actually, these are 2nd Dept cases. I will use `N.Y. App. Div.` or just leave court as described if not explicitly named in a header. The header is missing, but “AD3d” indicates Appellate Division. Date: The date for Redding‘s opinion isn‘t explicitly at the top of the section, but there‘s a separator `(September 10, 2009)` later. Usually, these pages are from a reporter. The “1059” is the page number. Actually, looking at the layout, Case 1 (Redding) ends on 1060. Then Case 2 (Santana). Then the date “(September 10, 2009)” appears before Case 3 (King). This suggests Redding and Santana might be from the same date, or the date at the bottom applies to what follows. However, typically, all cases on these pages share a term date. Wait, let‘s look at the reporter citation `884 NYS2d 886`. Searching for this case confirms it‘s an Appellate Division, Second Department case decided around 2009. Actually, let‘s stick to the visible text. **Case Name:** `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v SEAN REDDING, Appellant.` **Citation:** `884 NYS2d 886` **Court:** `Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York` (Inferred from context, but I will extract what‘s there). **Docket:** N/A in the text. **Date:** Not explicitly stated for Redding, but part of a 2009 reporter volume. Let‘s re-read the “Multi-Opinion” rule. “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.” Since Redding is the first full case, I‘ll do Redding. Page 1: 1059 Page 2: 1060 Wait, the screenshot shows page 1059 starts mid-sentence. That‘s the end of a previous case. Case 1 Caption: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Redding, Appellant. [884 NYS2d 886]—` Body: `Appeal by the defendant...` Ends with: `Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.` (Page 1060). I will process *People v. Redding*. - Party names: `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK` vs `SEAN REDDING`. - Citation: `884 NYS2d 886`. (Note: AD3d citation isn‘t given in the caption, just the NYS2d one). - Judge: Collini, J.; DiMango, J.; Covello, Lott, Austin, Ritter, Garni, McCarthy. - Dates: Judgment rendered January 14, 2004. Remitted January 29, 2008. - “identification testimony” -> no hyphen. - “appellate” -> page break happened before, but the text is continuous in Redding. - Rejoin: “suppression” (page 2, “sup- press“) -> `suppress`. - Rejoin: “identification” (page 1, “identifica- tion“) -> `identification`. - Rejoin: “defendant‘s” (page 2, “defen- dant‘s“) -> `defendant‘s`. - Rejoin: “photographic” (page 2, “photo- graphic“) -> `photographic`. - `People v Redding, 47 AD3d 953 [2008]` - `People v Morciglio, 29 AD3d 710, 711 [2006]` - `People v Coleman, 2 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2003]` Note: In the partial case at the top of 1059: `People v Rossetti`, `People v McCollum`, `People v Perez`, `People v Russell`, `People v DeLuca`, `People v Turner`, `People v Gedin`, `People v Levy`, `People v Alexander`, `People v Gutierrez`. These are ignored as they belong to the partial opinion. - `CPL 220.60 [3]` (in partial case - ignore) Wait, the redding case uses `Election Law § 16-104`? No, that‘s the *King* case. Redding doesn‘t have law cites in its body. - Redding: starts on 1059, continues to 1060. Short name: `People v. Redding`. Citation: `884 N.Y.S.2d 886`. Court: `N.Y. App. Div.`. (Second Department is standard for these names, but I‘ll use `N.Y. App. Div.`). Let‘s check the date for Redding. It‘s usually associated with the volume. 884 N.Y.S.2d 886 was decided on September 8, 2009. The next case has a date September 10, 2009. I‘ll omit date if not found in the snippet for Redding. Wait, the OCR for page 1 doesn‘t show a date for Redding. But the 2008 remittitur is mentioned. I will omit the `date` attribute if I can‘t find the decision date in the snippet, but standard practice is to find it if possible. However, the instructions say “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. I‘ll use the available info. Wait, I should convert the *King* case if it‘s considered “Main“? No, Redding is a full opinion. I‘ll do Redding. Actually, looking at the full document, it‘s a series of memorandum opinions. I will just do the first full one (Redding). One detail: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Redding, Appellant. [884 NYS2d 886]—” The citation `884 NYS2d 886` is in brackets. Let‘s check for “Main” opinion definition. Usually it means the first case that starts with a full caption on the page provided. Redding starts with a full caption on 1059. Refining metadata for Redding: ShortName: `People v. Redding` Docket: No specific docket number in the text (like “No. 2004-00123“). It just says judgment rendered Jan 14, 2004. Court: `N.Y. App. Div.` Citation: `884 N.Y.S.2d 886` Wait, look at page 1 again. The header says “1059“. There is no header with the court name. However, I can see “AD3d” citations. Let‘s begin formatting. **Page 1 (1059):** Skip partial text at top. Caption: `The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Redding, Appellant. [884 NYS2d 886]—` Body: `Appeal by the defendant from a judgment...` **Page 2 (1060):** `Ordered that the judgment is reversed...` `That branch of the defendant‘s omnibus motion...` `In light of our determination...` Concurrence: `Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.` Wait, there‘s another list of judges at the bottom of 1059: `Fisher, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Hall, JJ., concur.` Wait, that‘s at the end of the partial opinion at the top! Redding starts after that. Redding‘s body says: `Justices Covello, Lott, and Austin have been substituted for former Associate Justice Ritter and Associate Justices Carni and McCarthy.` Then page 1060 concludes the Redding opinion and gives the concurrence: `Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.` Wait, why are there different judges? Fisher/Miller/Angiolillo/Hall concurred in the *first* (partial) case. Spolzino/Covello/Lott/Austin concurred in Redding. Let‘s get the text right. Page 1059: ... Fisher, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Hall, JJ., concur. (End of case 0) [Black Bar] The People... (Case 1: Redding) ... Justices Covello, Lott, and Austin have been substituted for former Associate Justice Ritter and Associate Justices Carni and McCarthy. (Case 1 continues) Page 1060: Ordered that the judgment is reversed... (Case 1 continues) ... Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur. (End of Case 1) This is Case 1. Citations in Redding: 1. `People v Redding, 47 AD3d 953 [2008]` 2. `People v Morciglio, 29 AD3d 710, 711 [2006]` 3. `People v Coleman, 2 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2003]` HTML Structure: - `
` - `` - `

` (Appeal by the defendant...) - `` - `

` (Ordered that the judgment is reversed...) - `

` (That branch...) - `

` (In light of our determination...) - `

` Wait, Spolzino et al is a concurrence list. I‘ll format it as a signature block or just a paragraph? The instructions say: “concur” lines are usually treated as signatures or closing blocks. I‘ll use the signature block format or just a paragraph. Actually, usually it‘s `div class=“midpage-signature“`. Wait, looking at the example signature: ```html

JOHN A. ROSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

``` In these NY App Div cases, it‘s usually `Name, J.P., Name, Name and Name, JJ., concur.` I‘ll keep it as a paragraph if it‘s mid-sentence style, but here it‘s the final sentence. I‘ll use `

`. One more check on the `type=“short“`/`type=“id“` logic. - `People v Redding, 47 AD3d 953 [2008]` is a full citation. - `People v Morciglio, 29 AD3d 710, 711 [2006]` is full. - `People v Coleman, 2 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2003]` is full. One check: the citation for Redding in the body `(see People v Redding, 47 AD3d 953 [2008])`. The case I am converting is the *result* of that remittal. Let‘s start. Metadata: shortName: `People v. Redding` case: `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v SEAN REDDING, Appellant.` citation: `884 N.Y.S.2d 886` court: `N.Y. App. Div.` date: not in text (I will skip date attribute rather than hallucinate, or search. But instructions say extract from data. Date isn‘t there for Redding.) Actually, “September 10, 2009” is listed later on page 1060. It might apply to the whole section. But it‘s positioned between Santana and King. Redding citation 884 NYS2d 886 corresponds to September 8, 2009. I will omit the `date` attribute. Case Cite tagging: `People v Redding, 47 AD3d 953 [2008]` -> `case=“People v. Redding” cite=“47 AD3d 953” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2008“` `People v Morciglio, 29 AD3d 710, 711 [2006]` -> `case=“People v. Morciglio” cite=“29 AD3d 710” pinpoint=“711” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2006“` `People v Coleman, 2 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2003]` -> `case=“People v. Coleman” cite=“2 AD3d 1045” pinpoint=“1046” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2003“` Wait, for the main opinion metadata: `shortName=“People v. Redding“` `midpage-case-name`: `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v SEAN REDDING, Appellant.` `midpage-citation`: `884 N.Y.S.2d 886` Wait, there is a `parallel` cite often. But only NYS2d is shown. Re-checking partial content rule: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” The text from “The defendant‘s waiver...” down to “...concur.” is from Case 0. I will skip it. Final check on page 1: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Redding, Appellant. [884 NYS2d 886]—” The citation is `[884 NYS2d 886]`. I‘ll format as `884 N.Y.S.2d 886` in attributes but keep text exact. Wait, page 2 has Case 2 (Santana) and Case 3 (King). Should I convert Case 2 and 3? “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually this means the opinion the user is interested in, or the first one that is complete. Redding is complete. I will only do Redding. Page numbering: Start: `` Mid-paragraph on Redding? “Justices Covello, Lott, and Austin have been substituted for former Associate Justice Ritter and Associate Justices Carni and McCarthy.” (End of page 1059) Next page starts: “Ordered that the judgment is reversed...” (Start of page 1060) So the break is between paragraphs. One more thing: In the body of Redding, it mentions: “Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered January 14, 2004... Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), has now filed its report.” I‘ll include all this text. Word joining: “identifica- tion” -> `identification` “sup- press” -> `suppress` “defen- dant‘s” -> `defendant‘s` “photo- graphic” -> `photographic` Text contents for Redding: “Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered January 14, 2004, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (DiMango, J.), without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant‘s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. By decision and order dated January 29, 2008, this Court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on that branch of the defendant‘s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony, and held the appeal in abeyance in the interim (see People v Redding, 47 AD3d 953 [2008]). The Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), has now filed its report. Justices Covello, Lott, and Austin have been substituted for former Associate Justice Ritter and Associate Justices Carni and McCarthy.” (Page break) “Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant‘s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony is granted, and a new trial is ordered, to be preceded by a hearing to determine whether an independent source for the identification exists.” “That branch of the defendant‘s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony should have been granted. The alleged photocopy of the photographic array admitted into evidence at the hearing and the testimony concerning the array failed to provide a sufficient basis to overcome any inference that the array was suggestive (cf. People v Morciglio, 29 AD3d 710, 711 [2006]; People v Coleman, 2 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2003]).” “In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant‘s remaining contentions. Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.” That‘s the full opinion for Redding. One detail: “cf.People v Morciglio” -> there‘s no space in OCR. Image shows `(cf. People v Morciglio`. I will add the space. Wait, the citation `884 NYS2d 886` in the text has a bracket `[884 NYS2d 886]—`. I will include that in the metadata extraction. Let‘s double check if I should do Santana and King. The prompt says: “convert only the MAIN opinion“. In the context of legal publishing, Redding is a full memorandum opinion. Santana is a “Sentence Affirmed. No opinion.” memo. King is a full opinion. Usually, “the main opinion” implies one case per conversion when presented with a page of many. I will stick with Redding. If I did all of them, I would violate the “single opinion” rule unless they are considered parts of one document. They are separate cases with separate citations. I will provide the Redding opinion. Metadata for Redding: shortName: `People v. Redding` court: `N.Y. App. Div.` citation: `884 N.Y.S.2d 886` docket: N/A (Judgment of Jan 14, 2004) One more check on the `midpage-citation` attribute. The citation in the text is `[884 NYS2d 886]`. Let‘s start.