People v. Mack

Decision Date28 April 1981
CitationPeople v. Mack, 439 N.Y.S.2d 912, 53 N.Y.2d 803, 422 N.E.2d 572 (N.Y. 1981)
Parties, 422 N.E.2d 572 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie MACK, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 75 A.D.2d 586, 426 N.Y.S.2d 792.

Defendant appeals from an order affirming his conviction, on a plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.The underlying alleged error on which he grounds his appeal was the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for failure of compliance with the provisions of former subdivision 2 of section 812 of the Family Court Act(L. 1977, ch. 449), which at the time of his prosecution provided:

"The presiding justice of each judicial department shall designate by rules of court the appropriate law enforcement official, who may be a probation officer, warrant officer, sheriff, police officer, or any other law enforcement official, to advise any petitioner or complainant bringing a proceeding under this section, before such proceeding is commenced, of the procedures available for the institution of family offense proceedings, including but not limited to the following:

"(a) That there is concurrent jurisdiction with respect to family offenses in both family court and the criminal courts;

"(b) That a choice of forum by a complainant or petitioner bars any subsequent proceeding in an alternative court for the same offense;

"(c) The legal, social and practical consequence of an adjudication by the family court and that an adjudication in family court is for the purpose of attempting to keep the family unit intact.Referrals for counseling, or counseling services, are available through probation for this purpose.

"(d) The legal, social and practical consequence of an adjudication by the criminal courts and that an adjudication in the criminal courts is for the purpose of punitive action against the offender."

It is his contention that the criminal action was jurisdictionally defective because the proceeding concerned acts which would constitute assault in the second degree between spouses and because his wife as complainant was never advised of the procedures available for the institution of family offense proceedings in Family Court in compliance with the statutory prescription.

There is a threshold procedural obstacle to consideration of defendant's substantive contention which he cannot surmount; by...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
20 cases
  • People v. Munck
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • Febrero 25, 1993
    ...provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice of forum as required by statute (see, CPL 530.11 [2], this is not a jurisdictional defect mandating reversal of defendant's conviction (see, People v. Mack, 53 N.Y.2d 803, 806, 439 N.Y.S.2d 912, 422 N.E.2d 572). Defendant's other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit, unpreserved or, as with the sentence imposed--he is a second felony offender--matters in which County Court did not...
  • People v. Hafer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • Enero 25, 2024
    ...as this are generally not accepted in this state (see People v Di Donato, 87 N.Y.2d 992, 993 [1996]; People v Di Raffaele, 55 N.Y.2d 234, 240 [1982]; People v Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 338, 344-345 [1981]; see also People v Mack, 53 N.Y.2d 803, 806 [1981]; People v Pierre, 8 A.D.3d 904, 906 [3d Dept lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 710 [2004]), and the contentions he sought to preserve do not fall within the "extremely limited group of issues [that] survive[ ] the entry...
  • People v. Fernandez
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • Febrero 06, 1986
    ...his plea would not result in such forfeiture is irrelevant, because, even if communicated to the court, a subjective belief cannot permit evasion of what otherwise would be the consequences of the plea (People v. Mack, 53 N.Y.2d 803, 806, 439 N.Y.S.2d 912, 422 N.E.2d 572). Moreover, by pleading guilty before the hearing on his suppression motion, defendant precluded the making of a record and, in consequence, foreclosed the possibility of appellate review of his challenge to the admissibility...
  • People v. Richardson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • Mayo 20, 1993
    ...(see, CPL 210.45[5][b]; People v. Rodriguez, 79 A.D.2d 539, 539-540, 433 N.Y.S.2d 584, affd. 55 N.Y.2d 776, 447 N.Y.S.2d 246, 431 N.E.2d 972; People v. Mack, 75 A.D.2d 586, 587, 426 N.Y.S.2d 792, affd. 53 N.Y.2d 803, 439 N.Y.S.2d 912, 422 N.E.2d 572). Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to secure defendant's right to testify before the Grand Jury, defendant has failed to demonstrate the necessary absence of strategic...
  • Get Started for Free