You are here: / / DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS...
, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE INFORMED HIM OF AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE ROBBERY FIRST CHARGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant raised a question whether he should have been informed about the an affirmative defense to robbery first degree, i.e., that the object displayed during the crime was not a loaded, operable weapon:

A defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel before deciding whether to plead guilty … . That requirement is met under the New York State Constitution when defense counsel provides “meaningful representation” … . In cases asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea, “the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial, or that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different” … .

It is an affirmative defense to a charge of robbery in the first degree under Penal Law § 160.15(4) that the object displayed during the course of the crime “was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged” … . The defendant’s averments in his affidavit in support of his motion, along with the PSR, were sufficient to warrant a hearing on the issue of whether his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of this potential affirmative defense to the charges to which he pleaded guilty … . People v Flinn, 2020 NY Slip Op 06809, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

You might also like
42 USC 1983 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL-LAW NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT; THE NOTICE OF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM FOR THE REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EXCUSES WERE NOT VALID AND THE VILLAGE DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE CLAIMS SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE POLICE REPORT AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER WAVED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PEDESTRIAN, INDICATING SHE WAS ALLOWING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO CROSS THE STREET; ONE SECOND LATER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR; THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A SUPERSEDING, INTERVENING ACT AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE TRIALS OF TWO ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE SAME FIRE, WHERE ONE PARTY WAS BOTH A DEFENDANT AND A PLAINTIFF, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ANY PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM THE JURY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF INSURANCE (ONE OF THE ACTIONS IS AGAINST AN INSURER) CAN BE HANDLED WITH JURY INSTRUCTIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
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).
AN ACTION FOR “STRICT FORECLOSURE” PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1352 ALLOWS THE PURCHASER OF FORECLOSED PROPERTY TO EXTINGUISH ANY POTENTIAL CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY BY A NECESSARY PARTY NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TAX LIEN FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE NOTICE TO REDEEM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIPPING ON A STAIRCASE STEP, THE PERMANENT STAIRCASE IS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD AN INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES. 

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 CONVICTION FOR GRAND LARCENY BY FALSE REPRESENTATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY... THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE...