You are here: / / NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE...
, ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect:

… [A] motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 seeking to withdraw a plea to an indictment is part of a criminal action or, at the least, “related to a . . . completed criminal action,” so as to come within the statutory definition of a “[c]riminal proceeding” (CPL 1.20[18]; … ). Moreover, in light of the nature of the relief sought in the motion, the motion is, by its nature, criminal, rather than civil … . Accordingly, proper statutory authority under the Criminal Procedure Law must exist in order for the defendant to appeal from the denial of the motion … .

Such statutory authority does not exist. CPL 450.10 only provides that a defendant may appeal as of right from a judgment, sentence, or order made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and thus, does not provide for appellate review, as of right, from an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60, to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. Nor does CPL 450.15 allow for such an appeal by permission, as that statute only permits an appeal from orders made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and “[a] sentence . . . not otherwise appealable as of right” (CPL 450.15[3]). Finally, there is no avenue for appeal through CPL 330.20, which permits a party “to proceedings conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section” to appeal, by permission, from certain orders rendered under CPL 330.20 (CPL 330.20[21]). The orders specified do not include an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 to withdraw the plea … . People v Delano F., 2019 NY Slip Op 07089, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

You might also like
MOTHER BROUGHT A MANDAMUS-TO-COMPEL PROCEEDING TO REQUIRE THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE TO HOLD A SUPPORT-ORDER-VIOLATION HEARING WITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT SET IN THE UNIFORM RULES FOR FAMILY COURT; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS LIKELY TO RECUR; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE HAD THE DISCRETION TO ADJOURN THE MATTER BEYOND THE DEADLINE SET IN THE UNIFORM RULES, DESPITE THE MANDATORY LANGUAGE IN THE RULE (SECOND DEPT).
Trial Court’s Failure to Properly Characterize the Nature of the Jury’s Request for “Clarification” of Certain Counts Was a Reversible Mode of Proceedings Error
DEFENDANTS DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE PAINT BY SPRAYING LACQUER WHICH APPARENTLY LED TO AN EXPLOSION; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS SUFFICIENTLY CONTROLLED OR SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SUCH THAT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY, AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE THEORIES (SECOND DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE ONE-STEP RISER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
REPAIRING A LIGHT FIXTURE IS COVERED UNDER BOTH LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT CAN DIRECT A PARTY TO SUBMIT TO COUNSELING AS PART OF A VISITATION OR CUSTODY ORDER, THE COURT CANNOT SO CONDITION A PARTY’S REAPPLICATION FOR PARENTAL ACCESS AFTER A DENIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
Property Owner’s Liability for Snow and Ice on Sidewalk​

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 PRESUMPTION OF SUGGESTIVENESS RAISED BY THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PRESENT... NEW JERSEY PAROLEE’S CONSENT TO SEARCH AS A CONDITION OF PAROLE DID NOT...