People v Erwin Lee
Annotate this Case
People v Lee
2005 NY Slip Op 09981 [24 AD3d 1327]
Decided on December 22, 2005
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 22, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SCUDDER, GORSKI, SMITH, AND HAYES, JJ.
1626 KA 03-01917
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
ERWIN LEE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Ronald H. Tills, A.J.), rendered June 27, 2003. The judgment revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (PAUL B. CURTIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK J. CLARK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: December 22, 2005
JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Decided on December 22, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SCUDDER, GORSKI, SMITH, AND HAYES, JJ.
1626 KA 03-01917
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
ERWIN LEE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Ronald H. Tills, A.J.), rendered June 27, 2003. The judgment revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (PAUL B. CURTIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK J. CLARK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: December 22, 2005
JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
