You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY...
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA AND DID NOT HAVE A PRACTICAL ABILITY TO OBJECT, THEREFORE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIES, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant was not informed of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea and therefore did not have the opportunity to move to withdraw his plea. Therefore a narrow exception to the preservation requirement applies and the matter was remitted to allow defendant to make the motion:

… [A] narrow exception to the preservation requirement exists “in rare cases where the defendant lacks a reasonable opportunity to object to a fundamental defect in the plea which is clear on the face of the record and to which the court’s attention should have been instantly drawn,’ such that the salutary purpose of the preservation rule is . . . not jeopardized'” … .

In this case, the exception applies. At the plea proceeding, the court merely asked defense counsel if he had discussed with the defendant the potential “immigration consequences” of pleading guilty. Defense counsel responded: “He is here on a Green Card. We have discussed the immigration consequences.” Furthermore, the People’s contention that the written appeal waiver form demonstrates that the defendant was aware of the possibility of deportation prior to the imposition of the sentence is without merit … . Inasmuch as the record does not demonstrate either that the Supreme Court mentioned, or that the defendant was otherwise aware of, the possibility of deportation, the defendant had “no practical ability” to object to the court’s statement or to otherwise tell the court, if he chose, that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known about the possibility of deportation … . People v Mohamed, 2019 NY Slip Op 02557, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

You might also like
Lack of Notice of Alleged Dangerous Condition Established by Custodian’s Testimony
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SENT A LETTER TO THE INSURED SHORTLY AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE INSURED’S HOME REQUESTING THAT THE INSURED NOTIFY HER INSURER, THE INSURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED UNTIL IT RECEIVED THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SIX MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; THE INSURER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE ON THE GROUND IT HAD NOT BEEN TIMELY NOTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
RPAPL 1304 AND 1302-a DO NOT APPLY WHERE THE LOAN SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE IS NOT A “HOME LOAN;” COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO FORECLOSURE BUT FAILURE TO COMPLY CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF DEFAULT CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN STEMMING FROM THE SHOOTING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT BY HER LIVE-IN COMPANION, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TOWN AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA FOR A 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT RECEIVED AND RETAINED THE INVOICES; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED.
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND CONSPIRACY WERE PROPER, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (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

ANONYMOUS TIP ALLEGING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR BY MEN WEARING HOODIES GOING IN AND... DEFENDANT’S HEALTH AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS NEVER PLACED...