You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON...
,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW A MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the record supported defendant’s contention that Supreme Court did not inform him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The matter was sent back to allow defendant to move to vacate his plea:

… [W]e remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea, and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter. Any such motion shall be made by the defendant within 60 days after the date of this decision and order … and, upon such motion, the defendant will have the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation… . In its report to this Court, the Supreme Court shall state whether the defendant has now moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, shall set forth its finding as to whether the defendant made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing to entitle him to vacatur of the plea … . People v Hor, 2019 NY Slip Op 00899, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S VAN AFTER DEFENDANT HAD OPENED THE DOOR; DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD OPENED THE DOOR SAFELY AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE SUA SPONTE AND DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN THIS SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE ON THE GROUND CUTTING A TREE, BECAUSE GRAVITY WAS NOT INVOLVED LABOR LAW 240 (1) DID NOT APPLY, BUT BECAUSE CUTTING THE TREE WAS ANCILLARY TO WORK ON A STRUCTURE, LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘GOOD CAUSE’ AND ‘INTEREST OF JUSTICE’ CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Fact that Driver’s Negligence Was Deemed “Sole Proximate Cause” of Passenger’s Injury Did Not Warrant the Dismissal of Claims Against the Other Driver Involved in the Collision
Several Similar Thefts from the Same Store Constituted a Single, Continuing Crime

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

SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS EVEN WHERE IT IS NOT... DEFENDANT’S KIDNAPPING CONVICTIONS VACATED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF...