You are here: / / DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT...
, ,

DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID HE HAD FILED THEM AND THE COURT SAID IT HAD RECEIVED THEM; IN FACT, HOWEVER NO MOTIONS HAD BEEN FILED; DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that defendant’s complaints about his assigned counsel were sufficient to warrant further inquiry by the court:

… [D]efendant “articulated complaints about his assigned counsel that were sufficiently serious to trigger the court’s duty to engage in an inquiry regarding those complaints”…  At a pretrial appearance, defendant requested that the court assign him new counsel because, among other things, defense counsel had failed to file discovery demands and omnibus motions. After defendant’s request, defense counsel erroneously stated, “[t]hose were filed already,” and the court stated, “I have them here. I’m holding them in my hand.” However, the People concede that, although certain discovery demands were served on the People, defense counsel never filed any omnibus motions.

Upon being told that omnibus motions had been filed, defendant informed the court that he had never received them. The court replied, “Well, that’s a different issue, okay? So you’ve got to get a copy of your paperwork, all right? What else?” The court never conducted an inquiry into defendant’s serious complaint that defense counsel failed to file any omnibus motions and, instead, proceeded under the mistaken belief that they had been filed. Although “[t]he court might well have found upon limited inquiry that defendant’s request was without genuine basis, . . . it could not so summarily dismiss th[at] request” based on a mistaken belief that omnibus motions had been filed … . Thus, we conclude that the court violated defendant’s right to counsel by failing to make a minimal inquiry concerning his serious complaint, and we therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial … . People v Edwards, 2019 NY Slip Op 04537, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, THE APPELLATE COURT EXERCISED ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF LOAN SERVICING COMPANY WAIVED THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE PROVISION BY ITS RELENTLESS EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE FORECLOSURE SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER (TO EXACT A HIGHER PRICE); THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFF WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY A WRITTEN DECISION AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTROLLING REGULATION; SANCTIONS ASPECT REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Court’s Failure to Inquire Further When It Was Not Clear Defendant’s Plea Was Knowing and Voluntary Required Vacation of Plea
PETITIONERS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A USE VARIANCE BEFORE APPLYING FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE THEIR RESIDENCE AS AN AIRBNB, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Internally Inconsistent Verdict Properly Set Aside
THE DETECTIVE DID NOT READ THE MIRANDA RIGHTS TO DEFENDANT AND IT IS CLEAR FROM THE VIDEOTAPE THAT DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE READ THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THOSE RIGHTS BEFORE HE WAIVED THEM; THE PEOPLE, THEREFORE, DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVED THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE WAS ENTITLED TO COMMISSIONS EARNED ON HIS ACCOUNTS BEFORE, BUT NOT AFTER, PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED; ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS ORAL, IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS UNTIL AFTER PLANTIFF WAS TERMINATED. (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF AT RESENTENCING (FOURTH 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

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS INJURED BY AN OUTWARD-SWINGING BATHROOM DOOR WHICH OPENED... A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR A PAT SEARCH;...