Carty v. Hall
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtGarry, J.
It is undisputed that petitioner is an “eligible defendant” as statutorily defined (see CPL 216.00 [1]), who may be allowed to participate in the judicial diversion program (see CPL 216.05). Petitioner argues that respondent erred in failing to order that the evaluation be performed prior to denying him entry into the program. We disagree. The statute provides that “the court at the request of the eligible defendant, may order an alcohol and substance abuse evaluation” (CPL 216.05 [1] [emphasis added]). Thus, this initial determination clearly lies within the discretion of the court, as does…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People v. WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- People v. D'ANTUONONew York Court of Appeals · 2012
- Cayuga Indian Nation v. GouldNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- Johnson v. CorbittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Kovacevich v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- People v. WilliamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. PowellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. YoungAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- People v. CarperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- CARPER, VINCENT D., PEOPLE vAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.