You are here: / / MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE...
,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE IMPROPERLY RELIED ON CPL 440.30 (d) WHICH ONLY APPLIES IF THE MOTION IS BASED SOLELY ON AN ALLEGATION BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. There was a question of fact whether defense counsel was aware he could call an expert to testify defendant, who had ingested drugs, did not have the required mental state (depraved indifference). The First Department noted Supreme Court may have improperly relied on Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.30 (d) which applies only if the motion is based solely on an allegation by the defendant (not the case here):

While the motion court had a sound basis for its conclusion that there was “no reasonable possibility” that defendant’s trial counsel “was unaware that he could call an expert to testify about the defendant’s state of mind,” we find that this was not an adequate basis for denying the motion without a hearing in these circumstances. First, to the extent the court may have been relying on CPL 440.30(d), that section permits summary denial when “there is no reasonable possibility that such an allegation is true,” but it applies only when the allegation “is made solely by the defendant.” That is not the case here, where the allegation at issue regarding trial counsel’s statements was made by defendant’s motion counsel based on his own knowledge.

Nor do we believe that this is a case such as People v Samandarov (13 NY3d 433 [2009]), where the lack of merit of a CPL 440.10 motion could be determined on the parties’ submissions, despite it being “theoretically possible that a hearing could show otherwise” (id. at 440). Here, while the court’s perception may well be borne out, there are issues of fact sufficient to warrant a hearing … . People v Martin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00067, First Dept 1-7-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; THE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PRO SE MOTION WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING, DESPITE THE TECHNICAL DEFECTS (FOURTH DEPT).
OMISSIONS FROM COMPLAINT SUPPLIED BY AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
WHEN SERVICE OF PROCESS IS MAILED TO A BUSINESS ADDRESS, AS OPPOSED TO A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, THE ENVELOPE SHOULD NOT INDICATE THE CONTENTS ARE LITIGATION-RELATED; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS WAS BOTH HIS RESIDENTIAL AND HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AND THE ENVELOPE INDICATED THE CONTENTS WERE LITIGATION-RELATED; THE RESIDENTIAL MAILING RULES APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE.
CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FATHER AND ALL CONTACT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY OR VISITATION BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED A PLEA WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN MANDATORY DEPORTATION COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT; THE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
THE CASE INVOLVES A NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM TWO INCIDENTS: A FORM FELL OFF A WALL ONTO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A DEFECTIVE GRINDER (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

THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKERS’... DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD...