People v. Singleton

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Winston A. SINGLETON, Appellant.
Decision Date01 March 1971

Page 818

318 N.Y.S.2d 818
36 A.D.2d 725
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Winston A. SINGLETON, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
March 1, 1971.

Page 819

William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, for respondent; Jules E. Orenstein, Asst. Dist. Atty. of counsel.

Norman Rose, Garden City, for appellant.

Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and MUNDER, MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM and BRENNAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from (1) an order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered March 11, 1970, which denied his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and (2) the judgment of conviction rendered by said court on May 17, 1970 upon resentence on said plea of guilty.

Order and judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that he did not know he was pleading guilty to a felony in 1958, that the sentencing court misled him into the belief that he was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor and that the minutes of the change of plea are not available. After a hearing before Judge Douglas F. Young in the County Court, Nassau County, in an order made in People v. Singleton, a related case, Judge Young made a finding on August 2, 1968 that defendant's testimony that he did not know that he was pleading to a felony in 1958 was unworthy of credence. In our opinion, [36 A.D.2d 726] that finding was justified by the proof.

The mere fact that the minutes of the 1958 change of plea to guilty are not available does not render it mandatory that the judgment and order be reversed. The record on appeal, as amplified by other court records, is adequate for appellate review by this court (see order in People v. Singleton, Supra, entered August 6, 1968 in Nassau County). Assuming that that determination is technically not part of the record, this court may take judicial notice of it (9 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.), § 2579).

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • People v. Sanders
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 11, 2013
    ...792, 794 n*, 634 N.Y.S.2d 830; Sam & Mary Hous. Corp. v. Jo/Sal Mkt.Corp., 100 A.D.2d 901, 902, 474 N.Y.S.2d 786; People v. Singleton, 36 A.D.2d 725, 318 N.Y.S.2d 818). While the words “higher court” were not used in this instance, as they were in Lopez and Torres, reference was made to the......
  • Caffrey v. N. Arrow Abstract & Settlement Servs., Inc., 2015–06114
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 14, 2018
    ...296 N.Y.S.2d 760, 244 N.E.2d 243;see Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Kondak], 66 A.D.2d 531, 533, 413 N.Y.S.2d 929 ; People v. Singleton, 36 A.D.2d 725, 318 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; People ex rel. Bloom v. Collins, 277 App.Div. 21, 23, 97 N.Y.S.2d 579, affd 302 N.Y. 603, 96 N.E.2d 897 ; cf. Sleasman v. S......
  • Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Cigna, CV-56286-10/KI
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • February 2, 2021
    ...may be judicially noticed ( e.g., Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Kondak], 66 A.D.2d 531, 533, 413 N.Y.S.2d 929 ; People v Singleton, 36 A.D.2d 725, 318 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; People ex rel. Bloom v Collins, 277 App Div 21, 23, 97 N.Y.S.2d 579, affd 302 N.Y. 603, 96 N.E.2d 897 ; cf., Sleasman v Sherwoo......
  • Theresa C., Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • September 16, 1983
    ...71 A.D.2d 762, 419 N.Y.S.2d 327. 3 We take judicial notice (see Fisch on N.Y.Evidence (2d ed.), Section 1065; People v. Singleton, 36 A.D.2d 725, 318 N.Y.S.2d 818; People v. Dritz, 259 A.D. 210, 18 N.Y.S.2d 455) of that other file (Dkt. No. N-47-83) and note that it was recently adjourned i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • People v. Sanders
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 11, 2013
    ...792, 794 n*, 634 N.Y.S.2d 830; Sam & Mary Hous. Corp. v. Jo/Sal Mkt.Corp., 100 A.D.2d 901, 902, 474 N.Y.S.2d 786; People v. Singleton, 36 A.D.2d 725, 318 N.Y.S.2d 818). While the words “higher court” were not used in this instance, as they were in Lopez and Torres, reference was made to the......
  • Caffrey v. N. Arrow Abstract & Settlement Servs., Inc., 2015–06114
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 14, 2018
    ...296 N.Y.S.2d 760, 244 N.E.2d 243;see Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Kondak], 66 A.D.2d 531, 533, 413 N.Y.S.2d 929 ; People v. Singleton, 36 A.D.2d 725, 318 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; People ex rel. Bloom v. Collins, 277 App.Div. 21, 23, 97 N.Y.S.2d 579, affd 302 N.Y. 603, 96 N.E.2d 897 ; cf. Sleasman v. S......
  • Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Cigna, CV-56286-10/KI
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • February 2, 2021
    ...may be judicially noticed ( e.g., Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Kondak], 66 A.D.2d 531, 533, 413 N.Y.S.2d 929 ; People v Singleton, 36 A.D.2d 725, 318 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; People ex rel. Bloom v Collins, 277 App Div 21, 23, 97 N.Y.S.2d 579, affd 302 N.Y. 603, 96 N.E.2d 897 ; cf., Sleasman v Sherwoo......
  • Theresa C., Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • September 16, 1983
    ...71 A.D.2d 762, 419 N.Y.S.2d 327. 3 We take judicial notice (see Fisch on N.Y.Evidence (2d ed.), Section 1065; People v. Singleton, 36 A.D.2d 725, 318 N.Y.S.2d 818; People v. Dritz, 259 A.D. 210, 18 N.Y.S.2d 455) of that other file (Dkt. No. N-47-83) and note that it was recently adjourned i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT