You are here: / / MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING DESPITE WITNESS...

MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING DESPITE WITNESS RECANTATIONS AND CONFESSION BY ANOTHER PARTY, CRITERIA FOR SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXPLAINED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, based primarily upon newly discovered evidence, was properly denied without a hearing. Although two identification witnesses recanted, the recantations were suspect and there were other eyewitnesses. A confession to the crime by another was refuted by documentary evidence. With respect to the criteria for a showing of “actual innocence,” the court explained:

To vacate a judgment based on actual innocence pursuant to CPL 440.10(h), defendant must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence, which was not presented at trial, his factual innocence, i.e. that he was actually innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted … . To be sufficient, clear and convincing evidence must establish that the claim asserted is “highly probable.” “Mere doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or a preponderance of conflicting evidence as to the defendant’s guilt, is insufficient, since a convicted defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and in fact is presumed to be guilty”… .

“A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the court” … . As recently explained by this Court … , which agreed with the [2nd] Department that CPL 440.10(h) embraces a claim of actual innocence, “[T]his specific standard for actual innocence claims should be considered in light of, and alongside, the more general standard applicable on any motion to vacate a conviction brought under CPL 440.10. Thus, statements of fact supporting the motion must be sworn … . Further, hearsay statements in support of such motions are not probative evidence … .” People v Velazquez, 2016 NY Slip Op 05961, 1st Dept 9-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING DESPITE WITNESS RECANTATIONS AND CONFESSION BY ANOTHER PARTY, CRITERIA FOR SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXPLAINED)/VACATE CONVICTION,  MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING DESPITE WITNESS RECANTATIONS AND CONFESSION BY ANOTHER PARTY, CRITERIA FOR SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXPLAINED)/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING DESPITE WITNESS RECANTATIONS AND CONFESSION BY ANOTHER PARTY, CRITERIA FOR SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXPLAINED)

You might also like
Even Though Length of Merging Lane Was a Factor in Accident, It Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident
THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS’S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS’S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
Once an Amended Complaint is Served the Action Must Proceed As if the Original Complaint Never Existed—A Summary Judgment Motion Based Upon an Affirmative Defense Asserted for the First Time in the Answer to the Amended Complaint Was Properly Brought, Even Though a Prior Summary Judgment Motion on the Same Ground Had Been Denied/Medical Billing Software, i.e., Intellectual Property, Is “Personal Property” Covered by General Obligations Law 5-903—The Automatic Renewal Provision of the Medical Billing Contract Was Therefore Void
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).
PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION ALLEGING WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF A PROBATIONARY CORRECTIONS OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (FIRST DEPT).
Encroaching Structure Built to Prevent Excavation-Related Damage to Adjoining Property Is a Trespass

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER QUITCLAIM DEED WAS UNCONSCIONABLE; DOCTRINES OF PROCEDURAL... COURT SHOULD NOT MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS OR WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AT THE...