You are here: / / Motion to Withdraw Plea Should Have Been Granted

Motion to Withdraw Plea Should Have Been Granted

In determining defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea (which had been based in part upon the disposition of another indictment subsequently dismissed) should have been granted, the Second Department wrote:

Defendant pleaded guilty as part of a joint disposition of this case and another case, upon which he would be receiving a concurrent sentence of one year. However, the other indictment was dismissed, with finality, before defendant’s sentencing. The court should have granted defendant’s plea withdrawal motion, made on the ground that the plea had been induced by a promise that was ultimately unfulfilled…. The record establishes that defendant’s plea was induced in large part by the court’s specific representation that defendant was resolving two pending prosecutions. “It simply cannot be said on this record that defendant . . . would have pleaded guilty absent this assurance” …. As the dismissal of the other indictment amounted to a fundamental change in a “condition that induced [defendant’s] admission of guilt” …, he was entitled to withdraw his plea ….  People v Bennett, 2013 NY Slip Op 04714, 1st Dept, 6-20-13

 

You might also like
“Hostile Work Environment” (Allegedly Offensive Sex-Related Remarks) and “Retaliation for Opposition to Discriminatory Practices” Causes of Action Explained
DEFENDANTS DID NOT REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFFS GRANT A LICENSE FOR EXCAVATION WORK NEXT DOOR TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING; NYC BUILDING CODE 3309.4 IMPOSES STRICT LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SUCH EXCAVATION WORK; OVERRULING PRECEDENT, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT NEED TO SHOW EITHER THAT A LICENSE WAS GRANTED OR THAT PLAINTIFFS TOOK OTHER STEPS TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE SECTION 3309.4 (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR DID NOT JUSTIFY FAMILY COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY TO MOTHER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A HAZARD INHERENT IN THE JOB HE WAS HIRED TO DO; HIS LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 APPLIED ONLY TO HIGH-COST OR SUBPRIME LOANS WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED ON APPEAL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO ALLOW AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE OR INDUCEMENT (SECOND DEPT
Amendment of Decision and Order Dismissing Indictment Was Proper

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

County Court Had Jurisdiction to Correct 1999 Sentence Which Did Not Include... Ambulance Services Provided by Municipality Constitute a Governmental, Not Proprietary,...