You are here: / Attorneys
,

HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSESS ATTORNEY’S FEES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing must be held to assess the validity of an $80,000 attorney’s fee in a foreclosure proceeding. Supreme Court granted the fee without a hearing and without making the requisite findings:

While a hearing on counsel fees is not required when a determination can be made on the papers alone … , this is not the case here inasmuch as plaintiff’s “affidavit of services rendered . . . fail[ed] to set forth counsel’s experience, ability, and reputation, and fail[ed] to detail the prevailing hourly rate for similar legal work in the community” … . Furthermore, the itemized legal bills submitted by plaintiff are insufficient to assess the reasonableness of the fees in the absence of proof showing “the necessity of the services rendered, the benefit achieved, the difficulty of the issues involved, or any other of the considerations normally involved in calculating [counsel] fees” … .

Notwithstanding Supreme Court’s discretion in this realm and the fact that the court awarded plaintiff an amount less than what was sought, before an award of counsel fees may be fixed, “the court must possess sufficient information upon which to make an informed assessment of the reasonable value of the legal services rendered” … . In our view, Supreme Court did not have before it sufficient information to summarily determine the reasonableness of the sought counsel fees. Furthermore, “to permit intelligent review, a court must provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the [counsel] fee award” … . Although Supreme Court, in its order, recited the necessary factors relevant to determining the reasonableness of counsel fees, it did not provide a clear explanation for its ultimate counsel fee award. Rather, the $80,000 awarded by Supreme Court appears to derive merely from adding up all of the fees attributable to one of the attorneys who represented plaintiff — i.e., the attorney who submitted the affidavit of services — without regard to the necessary factors used to reach an award of counsel fees and with insufficient information in light of the block billing and vague and redacted time entries in the legal invoices. Accordingly, given that plaintiff’s proof was insufficient for Supreme Court to fix an award of counsel fees on the papers alone and that defendants were never afforded an opportunity in the first instance to challenge the reasonableness of the requested counsel fees, the matter must be remitted for an evidentiary hearing. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. v Point Prop. Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 00358, 3rd Dept 1-19-17

 

ATTORNEYS (FEES, FORECLOSURE, HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSESS ATTORNEY’S FEES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/FORECLOSURE (ATTORNEY’S FEES, HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSESS ATTORNEY’S FEES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

,

ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT THE RELEVANT FORM.

The Third Department determined the requested attorney’s fee was properly reduced from $2800 to $450 because the required form was not fully filled out:

Under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, the Board has broad discretion in approving an award of counsel fees … . Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 300.17 (d) (1), as relevant here, an attorney “shall file an application upon a form OC-400.1 in each instance where a fee is requested pursuant to [Workers’ Compensation Law § 24].” In approving counsel fee requests in matters where the claimant was awarded benefits, the Board “shall approve a fee in an amount commensurate with the services rendered and having due regard for the financial status of the claimant and whether the attorney . . . engaged in dilatory tactics or failed to comply in a timely manner with [B]oard rules. In no case shall the fee be based solely on the amount of the award” (12 NYCRR 300.17 [f]).

Here, the Board found counsel’s OC-400.1 fee application deficient for failing to indicate the date each service was performed and the specific amount of time for each service. Instead, counsel listed four categories of service with a total time for each category, identifying only the starting date for the initial work. The regulation mandates that the form “be accurately completed” (12 NYCRR 300.17 [d] [1]). Notably, the record confirms that counsel was familiar with a bulletin, Subject Number 046-548, issued by the Board on May 28, 2013, explaining that “[t]he form must be filled out in its entirety, including the section for the date, description, and amount of time spent on each service.” The bulletin further cautions that no fee will be approved unless “completed in its entirety” (see 12 NYCRR 300.17 [h]). A requirement for such specificity is consonant with the Board’s obligation to “approve a fee in an amount commensurate with the services rendered” … . Matter of Fernandez v Royal Coach Lines, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00368, 3rd Dept 1-19-17

 

ATTORNEYS (FEE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT THE RELEVANT FORM)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEE, FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT THE RELEVANT FORM)

,

PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING.

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have informed pro se petitioner of his right to counsel in this order of protection proceeding:

Family Court committed reversible error when, during a brief hearing in this article 8 proceeding, it failed to advise the pro se petitioner that he had a right to the assistance of counsel of his own choosing, a right to an adjournment to confer with counsel, and a right to have counsel assigned if he was financially unable to obtain representation (Family Ct Act § 262[a][ii]…). Moreover, Family Court did not possess sufficient relevant information to allow it to make an informed determination as to whether the parties are or have been in an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) … . Further evidence is needed regarding the frequency of petitioner and respondent’s interactions … . Matter of Gustavo D. v Michael D., 2017 NY Slip Op 00246, 1st Dept 1-12-17

FAMILY LAW (PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY LAW, PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING)

,

NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the blood-alcohol test and his statement should not have been granted. Although the police learned the name and phone number of defendant’s counsel before the test was administered, there was no evidence of the source of that information and no evidence counsel “entered” the case such that defendant should have been allowed to talk to his attorney before taking the test. The Second Department offered a concise explanation of the applicable law:

In People v Gursey (22 NY2d 224), the Court of Appeals held in this context that the police “may not, without justification, prevent access between the criminal accused and his lawyer, available in person or by immediate telephone communication, if such access does not interfere unduly with the matter at hand” (id. at 227…). The police have no duty to warn a defendant of this limited right before asking the defendant to submit to a blood alcohol test … . Violation of the limited right to consult with counsel will result in suppression of the test results … . * * *

“[A]n attorney enters’ a criminal matter and triggers the indelible right to counsel when the attorney or a professional associate of the attorney notifies the police that the suspect is represented by counsel” (People v Grice, 100 NY2d 318, 324). Notification given to the police by a third party, such as a member of the defendant’s family, is not sufficient to establish counsel’s entry into the case (see id. at 322 …). Although the holding in Grice related to the triggering of the indelible constitutional right to counsel, we see no reason to apply a less stringent rule for triggering the more limited right to consult with counsel before deciding whether to refuse a blood alcohol test. Indeed, the reasons for applying this clear rule as to entry of counsel for purposes of the constitutional right to counsel …, apply with equal force to the more limited Gursey right. People v Lucifero, 2017 NY Slip Op 00190, 2nd Dept 1-11-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/ATTORNEYS (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST (DWI, (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, DWI, NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIMITED RIGHT TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL BEFORE TAKING BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST, SUPPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED)

, ,

DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION UPON CONVICTION.

The First Department determined defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on misdemeanor charges, even though conviction might result in deportation:

… “[A] defendant’s right to a jury trial attaches only to serious offenses, not to petty crimes, the determining factor being length of exposure to incarceration” … . “An offense carrying a maximum prison term of six months or less is presumed petty, unless the legislature has authorized additiona… l statutory penalties so severe as to indicate that the legislature considered the offense serious” … . Despite the gravity of the impact of deportation on a convicted defendant (see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 [2010]), deportation consequences are still collateral ,,, , and do not render an otherwise petty offense “serious” for jury trial purposes.

Furthermore, under defendant’s approach, in order to decide whether to grant a jury trial to a noncitizen charged with B misdemeanors, the court would need to analyze the immigration consequences of a particular conviction on the particular defendant, and we find this to be highly impracticable. We note that the immigration impact of this defendant’s conviction is unclear. He is already deportable as an undocumented alien, and only claims that the conviction would block any hypothetical effort to legalize his status. People v Suazo,  1st Dept 1-3-172017 NY Slip Op 00030

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION UPON CONVICTION)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION UPON CONVICTION)/JURY TRIALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION UPON CONVICTION)

ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE DISQUALIFIED LAWFIRM, WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAWFIRM TO WARRANT DISQUALIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate plaintiffs’ attorney, Schultz, should be disqualified based upon a conflict of interest. Plaintiffs, in this motorcycle accident case, were initially represented by a law firm (HHK) which had previously represented defendant. Schultz, who was not part of HHK, was acting as “co-counsel” for plaintiffs, working with an HHK partner, at the time HHK was disqualified. After analyzing the facts, the Third Department found that Schultz was not “associated” with HHK within the meaning of the relevant Rules of Professional Conduct:

The Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys who are “associated in a firm” from representing a client when a conflict of interest would preclude any one of them from doing so if he or she were practicing alone … . The Rules of Professional Conduct do not define the phrase “associated in a firm,” but it is well established that its meaning extends beyond partners and associates who are employed by the same firm and includes attorneys with “of counsel” relationships … . However, not every lawyer who has any connection or relationship with a firm is considered to be “associated” with that firm for the purpose of imputing a conflict of interest … . Whether an attorney is considered to be “associated in a firm” … is a factual analysis that turns on whether the attorney’s relationship with the firm is sufficiently “close, regular and personal” … .

“Because disqualification can affect a party’s federal and state constitutional rights to counsel of his or her own choosing, the burden is on the party seeking disqualification to show that it is warranted” … . We are unpersuaded that this “heavy burden” was satisfied here … . Kelly v Paulsen, 2016 NY Slip Op 08920, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE DISQUALIFIED LAWFIRM, WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAWFIRM TO WARRANT DISQUALIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE DISQUALIFIED LAWFIRM, WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAWFIRM TO WARRANT DISQUALIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS)

,

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL, DETAILED EXPLANATION OFFERED.

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction solely on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. The court offered a detailed explanation of the misconduct:

“[I]n summing up to the jury, [the prosecutor] must stay within the four corners of the evidence’ and avoid irrelevant and inflammatory comments which have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the accused” … .

Here, during that summation, the prosecutor directly attacked defense counsel’s role and his integrity. Specifically, the prosecutor raised a hypothetical that bore no relation to the evidence in the case and then suggested what defense counsel would have argued with respect to that irrelevant hypothetical, in effect, implying that the defense arguments were the product of expediency. This tactic invited the jury to reject defense counsel’s argument not on the merits, but merely because it was raised by defense counsel. We strongly disapprove of this attack on the legitimacy of defense counsel’s role … . The prosecutor also improperly referenced facts not in evidence in order to call for speculation by the jury … and misstated critical testimony provided by a defense witness, alleging that certain facts were “undisputed” when in fact they were disputed … .

The prosecutor improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy and generalized fear of crime by asserting that the defendant possessed a loaded gun while families and children from the “20 residential buildings” were “everywhere” having “cookouts” and celebrating the Fourth of July, and that because the various police officers “did their jobs,” “fortunately, nothing happened.” These comments implied to the jury that the defendant intended to commit crimes with which he was not charged … . Furthermore, immediately upon praising the police officers who “did their jobs,” the prosecutor turned to the jury and advised that “[n]ow it’s your turn to uphold your oaths as jurors and do your jobs” by finding the defendant guilty. This type of “safe streets” argument is inflammatory and has repeatedly been disapproved by the courts … .

The prosecutor also compared the defendant’s in-court demeanor and appearance to how he appeared on the night of his arrest in order to argue that the jury should not be fooled into considering him a “gentleman” … . The prosecutor went so far as to point to the defendant’s precinct photo and stated that his appearance there represented his “true colors.” People v Brisco, 2016 NY Slip Op 08878, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQURED REVERSAL, DETAILED EXPLANATION OFFERED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQURED REVERSAL, DETAILED EXPLANATION OFFERED)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQURED REVERSAL, DETAILED EXPLANATION OFFERED)

, ,

DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions for criminal possession of a weapon, determined: (1) defendant was deprived of her right to present a defense when the court precluded questions that could reveal the complainant’s motive to lie; (2) prosecutorial misconduct warranted reversal (considered in the interest of justice; (3) allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant about her failure to turn herself in warranted reversal (considered in the interest of justice); and (4) allowing a witness to refer to defendant as a drug dealer warranted reversal (considered in the interest of justice). With respect to the right to present a defense, the court wrote:

… [W]e conclude that defendant was improperly precluded from establishing that the complainant was engaged in a criminal enterprise and regularly purchased crack cocaine—therefore having good reason to possess a gun as compared to defendant. More importantly, that evidence, if credited by the jury, would demonstrate that the complainant had every reason to fabricate the story that the gun belonged to defendant and not her … . In addition, we conclude that the proffered evidence was admissible to complete the narrative of events, i.e., to provide background information as to how and why the complainant allegedly confronted defendant, and to explain the aggressive nature of the confrontation … . Applying those principles here, we conclude that defendant was denied her constitutional right to present a defense … . People v Horton, 2016 NY Slip Op 08727, 4th Dept 12-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)/DEFENSE, RIGHT TO PRESENT (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)

,

ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

Although deemed harmless error, the Fourth Department determined defendant was denied his right to counsel when the court permitted him to decide whether to request a jury charge on a lesser included offense (despite defense counsel advice that he should not):

“It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case’ such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal’ “… . On the other hand, defense counsel has ultimate decision making authority over matters of strategy and trial tactics, such as whether to seek a jury charge on a lesser included offense … . Here, the court “made plain that [it] would be guided solely by defendant’s choice in the matter, despite the defense attorney’s clearly stated views and advice to the contrary,” and thus the court “denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him” … . People v Henley, 2016 NY Slip Op 08729, 4th Dept 12-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA.

The Fourth Department determined a hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been held. Defendant was charged with assault. 22 days before the assault defendant had undergone brain surgery. In his motion to withdraw his plea, defendant alleged he was told by his attorney the neurosurgeon had refused to testify if a psychiatric defense was raised. However, the neurosurgeon provided an affidavit stating he never spoke to defendant’s attorney and never refused to testify:

It is well settled that the determination whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the court’s discretion and that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only in rare instances … . The denial of such a motion is not an abuse of discretion “unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea” … . Here, if the allegations in defendant’s affidavit are true, then defendant’s plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered inasmuch as it was based upon a mistaken belief that a psychiatric defense was unavailable … . We therefore conclude that defendant’s motion was not “patently insufficient on its face” … , and that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing … . Thus, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a hearing on defendant’s motion. People v Noce, 2016 NY Slip Op 08632, 4th Dept 12-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA)/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA)

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