You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT...
,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE GUILTY PLEA; PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because defendant was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision:

… [F]or a plea of guilty to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the court must inform the defendant of either the specific period of postrelease supervision that will be imposed or, at the least, the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that may be imposed … . People v Benitez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03600, Second Dept 6-9-21

Similar issue and result in People v Dillon, 2021 NY Slip Op 03607, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

You might also like
THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
A DEFAULT JUDGMENT CANNOT EXCEED IN AMOUNT OR DIFFER IN THE KIND OF RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED “WITH PREJUDICE” BECAUSE A FUTURE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES MAY WARRANT MODIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S, PLAZA TOYOTA’S, DAILY OPERATIONS; THEREFORE TOYOTA COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PLAZA TOYOTA’S NEGLIGENCE; HERE A WHEEL FELL OFF PLAINTIFF’S CAR AFTER IT WAS SERVICED AT PLAZA TOYOTA (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Allege a Favorable Result Would Have Obtained “But For” the Attorney’s Alleged Malpractice Required Dismissal of the Complaint
RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS PASSENGER’S SUDDEN STOP INJURY CASE PROPERLY DENIED (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

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY...