You are here: / / “Alford” Plea in Related Criminal Proceeding Did Not Have Preclusive Effec...
,

“Alford” Plea in Related Criminal Proceeding Did Not Have Preclusive Effect

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Pigott, held that an “Alford” plea entered in a criminal proceeding, in which there was no factual colloquy about the underlying offenses, should not be given a preclusive effect in a subsequent Worker’s Compensation proceeding related to the same facts.  The opinion includes a discussion of the criteria for and appropriate use of an “Alford” plea (in which guilt is not admitted).  In the Matter of Howard v Statute Electric, Inc., No. 29, CtApp 3-21-13

 

You might also like
The People Were Required to Give Pre-Trial Notice of an Out-of-Court Identification of Defendant by Officer Viewing the Controlled Buy from Across the Street—Identification Was Not So Free From the Risk of Undue Suggestiveness that It Could Be Considered Merely “Confirmatory”—Error Was Harmless In the Face of Overwhelming Evidence
Failure to Suppress Statement Was Not Harmless Error Because the Statement Undermined the Justification Defense—Proof Burdens for “Harmless Error” and the Justification Defense Explained
TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.
Client May Pursue a Legal Malpractice Action Without Appealing the Ruling Upon Which the Malpractice Allegation Is Based Where It Has Not Been Demonstrated the Appeal Is Likely to Succeed
Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move to Suppress Statements, to Challenge Search Warrants, to Request Discovery and to Object to the Conduct of the Prosecutor Raised Questions of Effective Assistance
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND FALSE ADVERTISING WERE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED AGAINST AN INSURER PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES; PLAINTIFF, A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, ALLEGED DECEPTIVE AND FALSE MARKETING BY THE INSURER INDUCED HIM TO CHOOSE THE INSURER’S PLAN (CT APP).
EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND.
ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE BUILT THE BRIDGE, THE VILLAGE NEVER IMPLEMENTED THE PROCEDURES IN THE VILLAGE CODE FOR ASSUMING CONTROL OVER THE BRIDGE, THEREFORE THE TOWN WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Re-Sentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act—Court Does Not Have Authority... Prior Ruling on Appeal is Law of the Case for Both Trial and Appellate C...