You are here: / / Criteria for Motion to Vacate Based on Newly Discovered Evidence Expla...
,

Criteria for Motion to Vacate Based on Newly Discovered Evidence Explained

In upholding the trial court’s denial (without a hearing) of a 440 motion to vacate the defendant’s conviction based upon newly discovered evidence (i.e., a statement made by a juror to an investigator), the Third Department wrote:

Nor do we discern any error in County Court’s summary denial of that part of defendant’s motion that was based upon his claim of newly discovered evidence.  As relevant here, “[t]o justify vacatur under  CPL  440.10 (1) (g), the newly  discovered evidence ‘must . . . be  such  as will probably change the result if a new  trial is granted . . . [and] be  material to the issue'” …. A hearing is not necessary when the court can “adequately review the matter based upon the contents of the record and the motion papers”… .  People v Carter, 104989, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

You might also like
AGREEMENT ALLOWING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ “HOME RULE” RIGHTS.
THE TRANSFER OF DEFENDANT’S CASE TO A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE EXPLANATION OF A CONFLICT WITHIN THE DA’S OFFICE; HOWEVER, THE TRANSFER BACK TO THE DA’S OFFICE WAS NOT BASED ON AN EXPLANATION WHY THE CONFLICT WAS NO LONGER A PROBLEM; THE TRANSFER BACK TO THE DA’S OFFICE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT). ​
MEDICAL REPORT WAS SUFFICIENT TO REOPEN A CLOSED CLAIM WITHIN SEVEN YEARS, CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND.
HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO A WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED ANNULMENT.
“Unconscionable Contract” Elements Explained
DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT DIRECT OR EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK (THIRD DEPT). ​
WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S ALLEGED BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO THE VERDICT; THE ALLEGED BEHAVIOR WAS NOT SO WRONGFUL OR PERVASIVE AS TO JUSTIFY SETTING ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD 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

New Factual Claim Made for the First Time at Trial by Defendant Triggered “Inconsistent... Conduct in Prison Justified Upward Departure (SORA)