You are here: / / AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED...
,

AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN.

The First Department, in a case remitted by the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s challenge to the legality of his sentence would not be reviewed in the interest of justice. Defendant had been promised a three-year sentence, but was not eligible for a sentence less than six years. In violation of his plea agreement, defendant committed a crime while awaiting sentence. As a result the three-year promise was properly withdrawn and a six year sentence imposed. The Court of Appeals held that defendant’s failure to object based upon the illegal three-year sentence promise precluded appeal to the Court of Appeals. However, upon remittal, the Appellate Division could consider the question if it exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction (which the majority declined to do):

… [T]here is nothing rare or unusual about this case or this defendant. The plea proceedings do not raise a concern about defendant’s guilt. Defendant was advised of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and affirmed he was pleading guilty of his own free will. Defendant was represented by counsel and received a favorable sentence. Finally, defendant violated the plea agreement by committing another crime and the final sentence imposed was both legal and within the range announced by the court. Nor has defendant presented anything to demonstrate that his case is extraordinary. These facts, coupled with defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for review, fail to support the exercise of our discretion to review in the interest of justice, and militate against such exercise. People v Williams, 2016 NY Slip Op 07102, 1st Dept 10-27-16

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/SENTENCING (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/APPEALS (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL APPEALS, AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)

You might also like
PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE.
ALTHOUGH VACATUR OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 5015, VACATUR WAS AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 317.
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED A MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION AND PROPOSED PLEADINGS (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE MEANING OF ‘DEPRIVE’ WITH RESPECT TO THE LARCENY ELEMENT OF ROBBERY REQUIRED REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT’S FELONY MURDER AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN OPENING COVERED BY A PIECE OF PARTICLE BOARD (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS COOPERATIVE DURING HIS ARREST; HIS SUBSEQUENT RESISTANCE, THEREFORE, DID NOT CONSTITUTE “RESISTING ARREST;” INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PEDESTRIAN IN A CROSSWALK STRUCK FROM BEHIND IS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
UNDER THE “AGE 29 LAW” MEDICAL-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PLAINTIFF’S CHILD WAS AVAILABLE THROUGH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S PLAN UNTIL THE CHILD TURNED 29; THEREFORE THE STIPULATED ORDER IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COVER THE CHILD UNDER THE PLAN FOR AS LONG AS THE LAW ALLOWS REQUIRED COVERAGE TO AGE 29; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PARTIES CONTEMPLATED A CUT-OFF AT AGE 26 PURSUANT TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS REJECTED (FIRST 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

STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS... ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT, REVERSING...