You are here: / / THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS...
, ,

THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INFORMED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL OF A PLEA OFFER WHICH WAS MORE LENIENT THAN THE OFFER TO WHICH HE PLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that the court should have held a hearing to determine whether defendant was informed of a plea offer by defense counsel. Defendant argued the failure to inform him of the plea offer, which was more lenient than the offer to which he pled, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel:

To make out “an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based upon the defense counsel’s failure to adequately inform the defendant of a plea offer,” a defendant must show “that the People made the plea offer, that the defendant was not adequately informed of the offer, that there was a reasonable probability that the defendant would have accepted the offer had counsel adequately communicated it to him [or her], and that there was a reasonable likelihood that neither the People nor the court would have blocked the alleged agreement” … . …

There is no dispute that the People made a preindictment plea offer more lenient than the one that defendant later accepted — an offer that the People presumably extended “in a fair and honest manner” and believed would pass muster with County Court … — and that the offer was rejected and withdrawn. Defendant averred that he did not know about this offer and would have accepted it. People v Nitchman, 2019 NY Slip Op 04501, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

You might also like
VOCATIONAL FACTORS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SETTING COMPENSTATION FOR PERMANENTLY DISABLED LABORER.
BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE.
DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY PETITIONER WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND THE INTER-, INTRA-AGENCY COMMUNICATION EXEMPTIONS (THIRD DEPT).
GRAND-JUROR BIAS ISSUE IS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; ERRONEOUS ADVICE RE APPEALABILITY OF THE ISSUE REQUIRED REMITTAL TO GIVE DEFENDANT OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.
CLAIMANT, A MEMBER OF THE CITY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW (BAR) HIRED TO REVIEW THE FAIRNESS OF PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ELIBIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECTLY NAME THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 305(C) AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION TO BE REVIEWED WAS MADE IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 15 OF THE APPLICATION JUSTIFIED THE BOARD’S REFUSING TO REVIEW IT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF THE RELEVANT HEARING WAS INDICATED ELSEWHERE IN THE APPLICATION (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF NEL, A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH ASSIGNED CLAIMANT TO DELIVER AUTO PARTS FOR ITS CLIENT, ANY-PART AUTO STORES (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

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE... COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE INTEGRITY OF THE GRAND JURY WAS...