You are here: / / THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WAIVER-OF-INDICTMENT...
,

THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WAIVER-OF-INDICTMENT PROCEDURE, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; PLEA VACATED; PLEA TO A SUBSEQUENT INDICTMENT INDUCED BY A CONCURRENT SENTENCE PROMISE VACATED AS WELL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions by guilty pleas, determined the failure to comply with the waiver-of-indictment procedure required vacation of the plea, as well as the vacation of a plea induced by a concurrent sentence promise:

The record fails to demonstrate compliance with CPL 195.20. There is no evidence that defendant signed the indictment waiver in open court when the plea was entered because it is not dated as the same day as the plea. The court’s order affirming compliance with CPL 195.10 and 195.20 is also not dated and the court did not confirm on the record that defendant signed the waiver or make any reference whatsoever to it at the time of the plea. …

The failure to comply with CPL 195.20 is a jurisdictional defect that requires reversal of the judgment of conviction and dismissal of the superior court information … .

… [D]ismissal of the information necessitates dismissal of defendant’s subsequent plea … . Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery in exchange for a sentence of five years’ incarceration and five years’ postrelease supervision, to run concurrently … . Where, as here, a defendant’s guilty plea is “induced by the understanding that the sentence would be concurrent with the sentence imposed for [the prior] conviction, since set aside, the plea must be vacated” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 05902, First Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: Failure to comply with the waiver-of-indictment procedure is a jurisdictional defect requiring vacation of the plea. A plea to a subsequent indictment induced by a concurrent sentence promise must also be vacated.

 

You might also like
THE CONSENT-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS DWI CASE; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ERECTING AN OPAQUE FENCE AROUND A CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH BLOCKED DRIVERS’ AND PEDESTRIANS’ LINES OF SIGHT IN AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN HE STEPPED BEYOND THE FENCE INTO A LANE OF TRAFFIC (FIRST DEPT).
THE RECORDING AND DISCLOSURE OF INMATE PHONE CALLS DO NOT VIOLATE THE INMATES’ RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION (FIRST DEPT).
LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
Deed Was Not a “Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure;” Deed Therefore Did Not Transfer Title; Mortgagor’s Interest Can Be Extinguished Only by Foreclosure
THE PHRASE “CONSUMMATION OF THE ANTICIPATED MARRIAGE” IN THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, A CONDITION PRECEDENT, MEANT THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY, NOT SEXUAL RELATIONS; THE WIFE’S ARGUMENT THAT THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE COUPLE NEVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WAS REJECTED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING (1) THE HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF THE COURTROOM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC, NOT CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC IN EMAILS, AND (2), THE COURTROOM CLOSURE WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC-TRIAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 4 (FIRST 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

PLAINTIFF WAS SEVERELY INJURED IN A FORKLIFT ACCIDENT AND BROUGHT THIS ACTION... DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED THAT IF HE FAILED TO PAY RESTITUTION HIS SENTENCE...