People v. Swail

Jun 10, 2005
Versions:19 A.D.3d 1013
796 N.Y.S.2d 797
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6315
some mid-page information for previous case ends. Case information for THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MARK SWAIL, Appellant starts. Case metadata: Case name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MARK SWAIL, Appellant. Short Name: People v. Swail Docket: 796 NYS2d 797 (this seems to be the citation provided in the header) Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department (implied by AD2d/AD3d refs and “Monroe County Court” appeal) - Actually, looking at the header of page 3, it says “Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department“. Citation: 19 AD3d 1013 (inferred from page number 1013 and typical NY reporter formatting). Wait, looking at the top, it is page 1013. The citation in brackets is [796 NYS2d 797]. Page 1 starts at 1013. Page 2 starts at 1014. Page 3 starts at 1015. The first snippet on page 1013 is the end of another case. I will skip that and start with “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK...“. Case Information: Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MARK SWAIL, Appellant. Citation: 19 AD3d 1013 | 796 N.Y.S.2d 797 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: 2005 (inferred from AD3d/NYS2d volume/year context, e.g. People v Cobado, 16 AD3d 1114 [2005] is cited). Actually, without an explicit date on this snippet, I will extract what is there. The text says “rendered June 27, 2002” for the judgment, but the appellate decision date is missing from this specific header. I‘ll omit the date if not explicitly found. Wait, looking at the second case Peterson on page 1015, the citation is [796 NYS2d 796]. I will format Swail. Case Info: ShortName: People v. Swail Full Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MARK SWAIL, Appellant. Citation: 19 AD3d 1013, 796 N.Y.S.2d 797 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Docket: 796 NYS2d 797 Note: The prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. These are short memo opinions. Swail starts on 1013 and ends on 1015. Peterson starts on 1015. I will convert Swail as it is the “main” one I am focusing on (full caption). Let‘s check the citations. People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001] People v Cobado, 16 AD3d 1114 [2005] People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987] People v Marzug, 280 AD2d 974, 975 [2001] People v McNab, 167 AD2d 858, 858 [1990] People v Burns, 303 AD2d 1032, 1033 [2003] People v George, 255 AD2d 881, 881 [1998] Laws: Penal Law § 140.30 [4] § 140.15 § 215.51 [b] [i] Reflow: “insuf- ficient” -> “insufficient” “pre- senting” -> “presenting” “violat- ing” -> “violating” “pos- sible” -> “possible” “[gjrand [j]ury” -> “[g]rand [j]ury” (OCR correction) Signatures: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ. Dissent: Green, J. Let‘s do the HTML.