You are here: / / Criteria for Motion to Vacate Based on Newly Discovered Evidence Expla...
,

Criteria for Motion to Vacate Based on Newly Discovered Evidence Explained

In upholding the trial court’s denial (without a hearing) of a 440 motion to vacate the defendant’s conviction based upon newly discovered evidence (i.e., a statement made by a juror to an investigator), the Third Department wrote:

Nor do we discern any error in County Court’s summary denial of that part of defendant’s motion that was based upon his claim of newly discovered evidence.  As relevant here, “[t]o justify vacatur under  CPL  440.10 (1) (g), the newly  discovered evidence ‘must . . . be  such  as will probably change the result if a new  trial is granted . . . [and] be  material to the issue'” …. A hearing is not necessary when the court can “adequately review the matter based upon the contents of the record and the motion papers”… .  People v Carter, 104989, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

You might also like
TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO COMPEL THE WITNESS WHO ASSERTED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION TO TESTIFY OR TO ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE IN FRONT OF THE JURY (THIRD DEPT).
CARRIER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF AN EXPEDITED PERMANENCY HEARING PROPERLY DENIED, REQUEST WAS NOT BASED UPON AN EMERGENCY.
Failure to Verify Weight of Cocaine May Constitute Ineffective Assistance
Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Hear Defendant’s Refusal to Waive His Right to Remain Silent and His Invocation of His Right to Counsel
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH CREATED THE NYS COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND LOBBYING IN GOVERNMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE LAW CREATED AN AGENCY WITH EXECUTIVE POWERS WHICH USURPED THE GOVERNOR’S POWER TO ENSURE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF ETHICS LAWS (THIRD DEPT) ​
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER, A KENTUCKY RESIDENT, IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION: THE COUPLE HAD NOT LIVED TOGETHER IN NEW YORK STATE FOR 23 YEARS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFEFNDANT’S STATEMENTS WERE ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION TO THE MIRANDA REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

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

New Factual Claim Made for the First Time at Trial by Defendant Triggered “Inconsistent... Conduct in Prison Justified Upward Departure (SORA)