People v. Rivera

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

Feb 7, 2008

Versions:48 A.D.3d 250

850 N.Y.S.2d 454

Bennett The user wants a clean, semantic HTML conversion of a legal document provided as images and OCR. The document contains several brief legal opinions/memoranda from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (First Department, given the judges listed). Looking at the content: Page 1 starts with the end of a previous case (Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman...)). Then there is a full case: *People v. Paulino*. Then there is the start of *People v. Rivera*. Page 2 continues *People v. Rivera*. Then there is a full case: *Fisher v. Zaks*. Thеn there is a full case: *People v. Santulli*. 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. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Wait, there are multiple “main” opinions here. Usually, in these reporter volumes, each case is independent. Let‘s look at the first “main” opinion. Case 1 (partial): ends аt “Acosta, JJ.” Case 2: *People v. Noriega Paulino* [849 NYS2d 778]. This is a full summary order. Case 3: *People v. Enrique Rivera* [850 NYS2d 454]. This spans across pages. Case 4: *Mark B. Fisher v. Sam Zaks* [852 NYS2d 69]. Full order. Case 5: *People v. Anthony Santulli* [851 NYS2d 55]. Full order. The instruction “convert only the MAIN opinion” in a multi-opinion document usually refers to a single case file. If a PDF contains multiple cases from a reporter, I should probably pick the first complete one or follow the logic of “main opinion“. Given the structure of these reporter pages, I will treat the first complete one as thе main one, which is *People v. Noriega Paulino*. However, often these tasks require converting the whole thing if it‘s treated as one “document” (like a page of a reporter). Actually, the instructions say “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” This implies I should start with the first case that has a “complete case caption“. In this document, *People v. Noriega Paulino* is the first one that starts fresh with a name. Then *People v. Enrique Rivera* follows. Let‘s look at Case 2 (*Paulino*): - Cаse Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Noriega Paulino, Appellant. - Citation: 849 NYS2d 778 (or 48 AD3d 250 - page number is 250). - Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York (inferred from judges Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Acosta). - Date: The header or start doesn‘t give a specific date for the Appellate decision, though the underlying judgment was July 22, 2005. Usually, these pages are from a specific term. Since the first partial case says “entered September 26, 2007“, the appellate decision is likely around late 2007 or 2008. Without a date on the page for the appellate order itself, I‘ll have to check the OCR/Image. - Actually, looking at the page, there is no specific date for the appellate decision. I will use what is there. Case 3 (*Rivera*): - Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Enrique Rivera, Appellant. - Citation: 850 NYS2d 454 (also page 250). Wait, the prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, this means the one the user is looking for. In a reporter snippet like this, it‘s ambiguous. But the instruction “Skip partiаl content from a previous case... convert only the MAIN opinion... the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body” suggests I should pick the first full one. However, often in these tasks, I process the whole set of cases if they are brief and on the same page. But the instruction “SINGLE OPINION: For multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion” in the Critical Rules section is very specific. Rule 3: “SINGLE OPINION: For multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion.” The first opinion is the partial one. But it says “Skip partial content... the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” So the first “main” opinion is *People v. Noriega Paulino*. Let‘s extract metadata for *People v. Noriega Paulino*: - Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant. - shortName: People v. Paulino - Docket: N/A (not provided on page, just the reporter cite) - Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department - based on judges) - Date: Not explicitly stated for the decision, only the lower court judgment date. I‘ll omit if not found. Wait, loоking at the very top of page 1, there‘s no date. I‘ll use the year from the cite if I have to, but usually, I omit if not there. - Citation: 48 A.D.3d 250 (page number at top), 849 N.Y.S.2d 778. Wait, if I only convert one, which one? The first full one is *Paulino*. But let‘s look at Case 3 (*Rivera*). It‘s more substantial. However, Rule 3 is clear: “convert only the first opinion” (interpreting “first” as the first complete one). Let‘s double check if I should do all of them. The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions ... convert only the MAIN opinion ... Skip partial content from a previous case...“. This strongly suggests I stoр after the first complete opinion. Let‘s process *People v. Noriega Paulino*. Metadata: - Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant. - shortName: People v. Paulino - Court: N.Y. App. Div. - Date: Not provided. - Citation: 48 A.D.3d 250, 849 N.Y.S.2d 778. Wait, looking at the OCR, the start of Case 1 is “Judgment, Supreme Court... entered September 26, 2007“. This is part of a decision. Case 2 (Paulino) starts after a black square. Case 3 (Rivera) starts after a black square. Case 4 (Fisher) starts after a black square. Case 5 (Santulli) starts after a black square. I will convert the first complete opinion: *Pеople v. Noriega Paulino*. Actually, often these documents are provided as a single unit (e.g. “Case 1” in a dataset might be this specific page). If I only provide 3 sentences, it might be wrong if the user wanted the “Rivera” case which spans two pages. However, “Rule 3: SINGLE OPINION: For multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion.” And “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.” This implies: 1. Skip the Ira Gammerman case (partial). 2. Start at *People v. Noriega Paulino*. 3. Finish that opinion. 4. Stop. Let‘s look at *People v. Noriega Paulino*: Text: “Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered July 22, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed. The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidenсe and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury‘s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The police found defendant in possession of prerecorded buy money, and there was a satisfactory explanation for their inability to recover additional drugs. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.” Wait, looking at the layout, these are “Memorandum Decisions“. In NY Appellate Division reports, these are often just a series of entries. Is there a date for the term? Not on these pages. Let‘s look at *People v. Enrique Rivera*. It‘s longer. If I strictly follow “convert only the first opinion“, I do Paulino. Wait, usually “MAIN opinion” in these formatting tests refers to the one that is most complete if there‘s a choice, but “first opinion” is a strict rule. However, Paulino is very short. Let‘s look at the images again. Page 1: 250. Cases: 1. (Continuation) ... unanimously affirmed, without costs... Concur—Mazzarelli... 2. The People ... v Noriega Paulino ... 3. The People ... v Enrique Rivera ... (starts on 250, ends on 251) Page 2: 251. 3. (Enrique Rivera continued) 4. Mark B. Fisher ... v Sam Zaks ... 5. The People ... v Anthony Sаntulli ... I will convert *People v. Noriega Paulino*. Wait, checking the instruction “If input is not a legal opinion, return only: null“. This is clearly a legal opinion. One more check: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” This confirms I skip the Ira Gammerman block. “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Paulino has a caption and a body. Let‘s prepare the conversion for *People v. Noriega Paulino*. Metadаta for Paulino: Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant. shortName: People v. Paulino Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Bluebook abbreviation for NY Appellate Division is “N.Y. App. Div.“) Date: (Not on page, I will omit the date attribute) Citation: 48 A.D.3d 250, 849 N.Y.S.2d 778. Wait, should I include the [849 NYS2d 778] in the caption? Yes, as it is in the source. Wait, I see “4 1/2” in the OCR for the sentence. In the image, it is “4 1/2“. Citations to handle: - People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987] Wait, looking at the judge parenthetical: (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.). Lower court judgment rendered July 22, 2005. Wait, looking at “4 1/2 to 9 years“. The OCR says “4V2to 9 years“. I must correct to “4 1/2 to 9 years” as seen in thе image. Wait, I should check if there are any other citations. “People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]” JURISDICTION: NY. CITE: 69 N.Y.2d 490. PINPOINT: 495. COURT: N.Y. DATE: 1987. Wait, let‘s verify if I should include all judges. “Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.” This is the concurrence/panel list. Wait, checking rule for single opinion again. “If the document contains multiple opinions ... convert only the MAIN opinion ... Skip partial content from a previous case ... SINGLE OPINION: For multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion.” Okay, *Paulino* it is. One detail: the reporter citation for *Paulino* in the image is “[849 NYS2d 778]“. The page number at thе top is “250“. In New York Appellate Division reports, the citation would be 48 A.D.3d 250. The OCR for the page number is 250. Let‘s double check *People v. Enrique Rivera*. If I were to convert it instead, it would be longer. But the rule says first complete one. Actually, usually “Main Opinion” in these prompts might mean the one that is clearly the focus. But without a specific focus, “first complete” is the logical choice. Wait, look at the black box in Case 3. It‘s a redaction? Or a line? In the image for Rivera, there is a large black box covering text. This might make the Rivera cаse incomplete. Similarly, for *Fisher v. Zaks*, there‘s a black box. *Paulino* has no black box over its text (just the one before the caption). Actually, looking at the images: Page 1: - Black bar at top (over case name of previous case). - Black box before “THE PEOPLE ... v NORIEGA PAULINO“. - Black box before “THE PEOPLE ... v ENRIQUE RIVERA“. - LARGE black box covering the “Order/Judgment” part of Rivera. Page 2: - Black bar at top. - Black box before “MARK B. FISHER ... v SAM ZAKS“. - LARGE black box covering the “Order/Judgment” part of Fisher. - Black box before “THE PEOPLE ... v ANTHONY SANTULLI“. So *Paulino* is the only one with the introductory text (Judgment, Supreme Court...) visible. Wait, loоking at the image for Paulino, the text “Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered July 22, 2005...” is visible. For Rivera, that section is covered by a black rectangle. So *Paulino* is the best choice for “complete case caption and full opinion body“. Wait, let‘s re-read the Paulino image. “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Noriega Paulino, Appellant. [849 NYS2d 778]—Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered July 22, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.” The OCR for Paulino is slightly broken: “Judgment Supreme Court...” starts on a new line in OCR but in the image it‘s on the same line after a dash. Actually, let‘s look at the image of Paulino carefully. “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Noriega Paulino, Appellant. [849 NYS2d 778]—Judgment Supreme Court...” It is one continuous paragraph starting with the parties. I will format *People v. Noriega Paulinо*. Metadata: shortName: People v. Paulino case: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. NORIEGA PAULINO docket: (None) court: N.Y. App. Div. cite: 48 A.D.3d 250 | 849 N.Y.S.2d 778 date: (Not specified for decision, but underlying judgment is 2005. Decision is likely 2007 or 2008. I will omit `date` or use the year from the cite if I have it. Since I only have 849 NYS2d 778, I won‘t guess the date). Actually, the instruction for case information says: “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. The case name in the source is “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant.” shortName: People v. Paulino HTML Structure:

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered July 22, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The police found defendant in possession of prerecorded buy money, and there was a satisfactory explanation for their inability to recover additional drugs. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.

Wait, looking at the layout: The text “Judgment, Supreme Court...” seems to follow the parties on the same line in the image? No, it‘s a block. Actually, in the Paulino case: Line 1: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Line 2: Noriega Paulino, Appellant. [849 NYS2d 778]—Judgment, Line 3: Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), ... Actually, lоoking at the image, there is a dash “—” after the cite. In the OCR: “[849 NYS2d 778]” is followed by “Judgment Supreme Court“. I will keep the structure of the paragraph. Wait, the instructions say “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Then it says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Is Paulino the MAIN opinion? It‘s the first complete one. But Rivera is longer and more like a typical “main” opinion. However, Rivera has a massive black box covering the entire procedural history (Judgment, Supreme Court... unanimously affirmed). Paulino is fully reаdable. So Paulino is the “full opinion body“. Wait, I need to check the reporter page number “250“. The instruction says: “Reporter page numbers (e.g., *324 or star pagination) ... internal pagination (e.g., “Page 1 of 7“) — last resort.” I‘ll use `n=“250“`. Wait, should I include the [849 NYS2d 778] in the caption or the citation element? I‘ll put it in the citation element and use it as a parallel cite. In New York Appellate Division, 1st Dept, the official cite is A.D.3d. Volume 48, page 250. So: 48 A.D.3d 250. Let‘s refine the case info. Case name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant. shortName: People v. Paulino Citation: 48 A.D.3d 250 | 849 N.Y.S.2d 778 One detail: “4V2to 9 years” in OCR. In image it is “4 1/2 to 9 years“. One more thing: the OCR says “ad ditional“. Rejoin to “additional“. OCR says “Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.” In the image, it is: “Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.” Wait, the prompt says “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. Case name is in Small Caps/Title Case in image? Image: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant. It‘s in small caps. I‘ll use “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant.” Actually, I will use:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant.

Wait, the citation in the image is `[849 NYS2d 778]`. I will put that in a citation tag. And the page 250. Let‘s double check if I should do the Rivera case instead. If a user provides two pages, and I only do the 5-line case, they might be annoyed. But the rule “SINGLE OPINION” is bolded and in the “Critical Rules“. “SINGLE OPINION: For multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion.” And “Skip partial content... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Paulino is the first complete one. Wait, looking at the black boxes. They are added by the user or part of the source? They look like redactiоns. If they are redactions, then the cases with redactions (Rivera, Fisher) are technically “incomplete” in the provided scan. Paulino is the only one that is not redacted (except for the header). Wait, “Judgment, Supreme Court...” for Paulino. In the image: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Noriega Paulino, Appellant. [849 NYS2d 778]—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered July 22, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controllеd substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.” This whole thing is one block/paragraph in the report format. Wait, I‘ll separate the parties from the summary if they are distinct. In these reports, they are often formatted with the parties first. I‘ll follow the visual structure. One detail: “People v Bleakley“. In image: “People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]“. Citations: `case=“People v. Bleakley“` `cite=“69 N.Y.2d 490“` `pinpoint=“495“` `court=“N.Y.“` `date=“1987“` Wait, the OCR says “4V2“. I must ensure it‘s “4 1/2“. The concurrencеs list is part of the opinion. One more check: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” This means the text: “Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman...)... Acosta, JJ.” is skipped. I will start at the Paulino case. One concern: Is “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Noriega Paulino, Appellant.” the caption or part of the first paragraph? In legal reporters, it is the caption/case name. The summary/judgment info follows. I will treat it as the caption. Whаt about the citation `[849 NYS2d 778]`? It appears right after the appellant‘s name. Okay, let‘s build it. ```html

``` Wait, should I look for a date for the decision? Looking at the OCR: “entered September 26, 2007” for the previous case. This page is likely from early 2008. But since it‘s not on the pagе, I shouldn‘t guess. Rule: “date attribute in YYYY-MM-DD format ... Omit elements without data“. Wait, Rule 3 “SINGLE OPINION” is very strict. I‘ll stick to Paulino. Wait, is there any reason Paulino is NOT a legal opinion? No, it‘s a memorandum decision. Wait, the OCR has “ad ditional“. Rejoined to “additional“. OCR has “4V2“. Image has “4 1/2“. One final check on Rivera: Rivera‘s procedural history (the “Judgment... affirmed” part) is blacked out. Only the reasoning and concurrence are visible on pages 1 and 2. So Paulino is the only “complete” opinion provided. Wait, looking at the image again. The black boxes are clearly added to the PDF. Case 1: Partial. Case 2 (Paulino): Complete. Case 3 (Rivera): Partial (Intro blacked out). Case 4 (Fisher): Partial (Intro blacked out). Case 5 (Santulli): Complete (Judgment info is visible). But Paulino is the first complete one. Final check on the case name formatting: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant.” It‘s in small caps in the image. I‘ll use standard capitalization if it looks better, but the rule says “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“. I‘ll use the capitalization in the source (which is all caps for names). Wait, what about the judges? “Concur—Mаzzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.” I‘ll keep that as is. Wait, I should check if there‘s a court name at the top. Top of page 1: “250“. There‘s a blacked out area. But based on the judges (Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson, Acosta), this is the Appellate Division, First Department. I will use “Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York” as the court name. Actually, for `midpage-court` attribute: `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. One more thing: The citation tag for Bleakley. `69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]` I‘ll use `69 N.Y.2d 490`. Wait, the prompt says “Convert the provided legal document... whilе preserving all content exactly.” If I only do Paulino, am I preserving “all content exactly“? Usually, “all content” refers to the content of the selected opinion. Rule 3 and the multi-opinion clause are the governing instructions for which opinion to select. One detail: “4 1/2 to 9 years“. The OCR says “4V2“. In the image it‘s “4 1/2“. The “1/2” is a single character fraction? No, it looks like 1 / 2. I‘ll use “1/2“. Final check of Paulino case name: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant.” I‘ll use the capitalization from the source. Wait, I see “The People of the State of New York” in mixed case in some parts of the OCR. In the image: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK” (Small caps) “Respondent, v” (Italics / Mixed) “NORIEGA PAULINO,” (Small caps) “Appellant.” (Italics / Mixed) I will use: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant. One detail: “[849 NYS2d 778]” I‘ll put that in the `midpage-citation` element. Actually, looking at Rule 3 again: “SINGLE OPINION: For multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion.” First complete opinion. Wait, what if the user wants Rivera? Usually, if Rivera spans two pages, that‘s the “Main” opinion of the set. However, it‘s redacted. Paulino is fully readable and comes first. I will provide Paulino. One catch: Rule 1: “VERBATIM TEXT: Do not add, remove, or change ANY words.” The OCR says “rendered July 22, 2005“. The image says “rendered July 22, 2005“. OCR says “convicting defendant“. Image says “convicting defendant“. Everything matches. Wait, I should check the page number for Rivera to see if I should include it. Page 250. The Paulino case ends on 250. Rivera starts on 250 and ends on 251. If I only do Paulino, I stay on page 250. Let‘s do it. One check: “4 1/2” vs “4 1/2“. The image has the fraction as a single glyph maybe? Hard to tell. I‘ll use “4 1/2“. Wait, I noticed “Respondent, v” is italicized in the image (actually it‘s just the ‘v’ usually). No, in this reporter, the whole status line “Respondent, v” and “Appellant.” are оften in a different font style (italics). Looking at the image, “Respondent,” “v“, “Appellant.” are definitely italicized. Wait, Rule 1: “VERBATIM TEXT... Do not add, remove, or change ANY words.” But I should preserve italics. Wait, should I italicize the status in the case name element? The instructions for case name say “Preserve formatting exactly“. ```html

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant.

``` Actually, usually simple strings are preferred ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍in the attribute-bearing tag. I‘ll use:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v NORIEGA PAULINO, Appellant.

Wait, “Judgment, Supreme Court” has a comma in the text block. “Judgment Supreme Court” in OCR. Checking image: “Judgment Supreme Court” (no comma after Judgment). Wait, I see “Judgment, Supreme Court” in the first case (Ira Gammerman). But for Paulino: “Judgment Supreme Court“. Actually, let‘s look closer at Paulino. “Judgment Supreme Court” There is no comma. Wait, Rivera has “Judgment, Supreme Court” (with comma). I‘ll follow Paulino exactly. “Judgment Supreme Court“. Wait, I‘ll check “4 1/2” again. Image shows “4¹/₂“. It‘s a small fraction. I‘ll use “4 1/2“. One more check: “ad ditional” in OCR. “additional” in image. Rejoining: “additional“. Okay, ready. Wait, the citation 849 NYS2d 778. In NY, the parallel cite is 849 N.Y.S.2d 778. I‘ll use the standard normalization in the attribute: `cite=“48 A.D.3d 250“` and `parallel=“849 N.Y.S.2d 778“`. Wait, the prompt doesn‘t ask for a parallel attribute in case-info. It asks for a citation string. `

48 A.D.3d 250 | 849 N.Y.S.2d 778

` Wait, what about the judgeparenthetical? Bonnie G. Wittner, J. The text says “concurrent terms of 4 1/2 to 9 years“. The OCR says “4V2to 9 years“. Corrected. Wait, I see “Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.” The dash is an em-dash or en-dash. I‘ll use an em-dash “—“. One last thing: “see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]“. Citations: `case=“People v. Bleakley“` `cite=“69 N.Y.2d 490“` `pinpoint=“495“` `court=“N.Y.“` `date=“1987“` Wait, the prompt says “date attribute in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g., date=“2024-03-15“)” for the Case Information. For `