You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS SO INFORMED IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE,...
,

ALTHOUGH THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS SO INFORMED IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, DEFENDANT WAS NOT DIRECTLY INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BY THE JUDGE; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter to allow defendant to move to withdraw his guilty plea, determined, although the co-defendant, in defendant’s presence, was informed of the possibility of deportation based upon the plea, the defendant, who did not speak English, was not directly so informed by the judge:

During that proceeding, the court posed a question directly to “Mr. Vidalis,” asking if the codefendant understood that he could be deported if he entered a plea of guilty, to which the codefendant answered in the affirmative. The court then stated to the defendant, “Mr. Tapia; do you understand that?” The defendant answered in the affirmative. The court then individually asked the codefendant and the defendant if they had fully discussed “the immigration consequences of this case with your attorney,” to which the defendant answered in the affirmative. However, the court did not specifically instruct the defendant, who required a Spanish interpreter to understand the court and had only a sixth-grade education, that he could be deported if he entered a plea of guilty, nor did the court use the words “deported” or “deportation” in any statement posed directly to the defendant. * * *

… [W]hile the plea record demonstrates that the Supreme Court specifically advised the codefendant of the possibility that he could be deported as a consequence of his plea, the court, in addressing the defendant, simply asked, “Mr. Tapia; do you understand that?” … . In light of the defendant’s limited education and need for a Spanish interpreter to understand the court’s remarks, the court’s limited inquiry as to whether the defendant understood “that” did not ensure the defendant’s understanding that he could be deported as a consequence of his own plea, as opposed to his mere recognition that the codefendant faced deportation consequences … . People v Tapia, 2021 NY Slip Op 01274, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

You might also like
THE DIGNITY FOR ALL STUDENTS ACT (DASA) DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR IN-SCHOOL BULLYING AND HARASSMENT (SECOND DEPT),
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED ON ROSIN PAPER WHICH WAS PLACED ON THE STEPS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; INSURANCE LAW 2601 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION; A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES CAUSE OF ACTION WILL SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
Family Assessment Response (FAR) Reports Are Not Subject to Expunction (Expungement) Prior to the Expiration of the 10-Year Statutory Period
MOTHER, WHO OPPOSES VACCINATING THE CHILD, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED MEDICAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Discovery in a Special Proceeding Explained/Criteria for Leave to File a Late Notice of Claim Explained
PLAINTIFF-PEDESTRIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT CAN CONSIDER COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHERE, AS HERE, THE PLAINTIFF MOVES TO DISMISS THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Amend Complaint to Allege City Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect

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

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATING TO THE COURT THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS SLIP AND...