You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING...

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLEA OFFER, RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT DEFENDANT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OFFER TO MAKE SURE HIS BAIL WOULD NOT BE INCREASED; DEFENDANT WAS WORRIED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO FIND CARE FOR HIS THREE-YEAR-OLD SON; BAIL SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION IN PLEA NEGOTIATIONS; THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea without holding a hearing. The matter was remitted for a hearing. The defendant was given a “last chance” to accept a plea offer just before the suppression hearing began. Defense counsel asked about bail at that time and then defendant met with defense counsel before deciding to take the plea offer. In his motion to withdraw the plea, defendant alleged that, based upon his discussion with defense counsel, he thought his bail would be substantially increased if he didn’t take the plea offer and was concerned about taking care of his three-year-old son. He had brought his son  to court because he couldn’t find a babysitter:

Bail status “has no legitimate connection to the mutuality of advantage underlying plea bargaining because it does not relate either to the more lenient sentence for which the defendant is negotiating or to the waiver of trial and the certainty of conviction the prosecution is seeking” … . Accordingly, “[t]he prospect of an immediate change in bail status, therefore, is an inappropriate consideration in plea negotiations” … .

Here, the plea bargaining process and the defendant’s affidavit raise a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea and, therefore, the defendant’s motion should not have been denied without a hearing … . The County Court’s response to defense counsel’s questions regarding bail, which included a statement that this was the defendant’s “last chance” to accept the offer, raise a legitimate question as to whether the defendant understood that the court’s purportedly forthcoming bail decision was contingent on acceptance of the offer. Notably, after the defendant accepted the plea, the court never brought up the issue of changing the defendant’s bail status, effectively continuing his release on cash bail without any changes … .  People v Swain, 2021 NY Slip Op 01430, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

You might also like
Defendant, In Its Summary Judgment Motion, Properly Addressed Only the Theory of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Which Was Alleged in the Pleadings
PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNERS’ ACTION AGAINST THE INSURER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF ACKNOWLEDGED THE HOME WAS VACANT WHEN THE POLICY WAS PURCHASED AND AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE AND THE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR VACANT PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT TIE THE FALL TO THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL; THERE WAS NO STATUTE OR CODE PROVISION, AND NO COMMON LAW DUTY, REQUIRING TWO HANDRAILS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS AN ACTION FOR “NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE” UNLESS THE STATUTORY PREREQUISITES FOR DISMISSAL SPELLED OUT IN CPLR 3216 ARE MET (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS’ STOPPED VEHICLE WAS HIT FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLANTIFF’S VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A COMMON LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT (SECOND 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

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER ANY... THE COMPLAINT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS...