You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Driving While Intoxicated convictions, noted that the dwi counts were lesser inclusory counts of vehicular manslaughter. The error did not require preservation:

​

The People correctly concede, however, that counts two and three, charging driving while intoxicated, must be dismissed as lesser inclusory counts of count one, charging vehicular manslaughter in the first degree … , and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for our review is of no moment because preservation is not required … . People v Mastowski, 2017 NY Slip Op 08113, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS, DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))/LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS (CRIMINAL LAW, DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER (DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant was not advised of the direct consequences of his guilty plea in that he was not advised that the sentence to which he agreed was fixed without regard to the outcome of the second violent felony offender hearing . The guilty plea was vacated and the matter sent back to County Court:

​

“While a trial court has no obligation to explain to defendants who plead guilty the possibility that collateral consequences may attach to their criminal convictions, the court must advise a defendant of the direct consequences of the plea” … . Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court failed to fulfill its obligation to advise him at the time of the plea that the sentence imposed would include a period of postrelease supervision …, and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . Nevertheless, the record supports defendant’s further contention that he was not advised that the sentence to which he agreed when pleading guilty was fixed without regard to the outcome of the second violent felony offender hearing, and thus that he was not properly advised of the direct consequences of the plea … . People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 08132, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCE, MOTION TO VACATE (DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in this contract dispute should have been granted. Defendant signed the contract as president of a corporation which existed but was misnamed. Defendant could not be held personally liable:

​

“According to the well settled general rule, individual officers or directors are not personally liable on contracts entered into on behalf of a corporation if they do not purport to bind themselves individually’ . . . However, it is also well established that an agent who acts on behalf of a nonexistent principal may be held personally liable on the contract”… . “The rule [was] designed to protect a party who enters into a contract where the other signatory represents that he is signing on behalf of a business entity that in fact does not exist, under any name . . . [Thus,] as long as the identity of the corporation can be reasonably established from the evidence[,] . . . [an e]rror in the use of the corporate name will not be permitted to frustrate the intent which the name was meant to convey’ . . . In such a situation, . . . there is no need or basis to impose personal liability on the person who signed the contract as agent for the entity”… . “Accordingly, absent an allegation that, at the time of the contract, a plaintiff was under an actual misapprehension that there was some other, unincorporated group with virtually the same name as that of the actual business entity, the [c]ourt will not permit the [plaintiff] to capitalize on [a] technical naming error in contravention of the parties’ evident intentions’ ” … .

Thus, courts have determined that the individual who signed the contract may be liable where there was no existing corporation under any name because, under those circumstances, the plaintiff has “no remedy except against the individuals who acted as agents of those purported corporations”… . Where, as here, there was an existing corporation and merely a misnomer in the name of the corporation, courts have declined to impose liability on the individual who signed the contract because the plaintiff has a remedy against the existing, albeit misnamed, corporation… .

Here, we conclude that no one was under an actual misapprehension that there was an entity with the name. TBW, INC. J.N.K. Mach. Corp. v TBW, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 08106, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (CONTRACT LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (CORPORATION LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

SIGN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SAYING THE DEFENDANT “SCREWED US BEWARE” WAS ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION, MOTION TO DISMISS THE DEFAMATION COUNTERCLAIM IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined a sign on plaintiff’s property saying “R. KESSLER [the defendant] SCREWED US BEWARE” was actionable defamation. Therefore the defendant’s defamation counterclaim survived a motion to dismiss:

​

… Supreme Court properly denied that part of plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) seeking to dismiss the defamation counterclaim. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the statement is “reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation” … . Furthermore, it is a mixed statement of opinion and fact and thus is actionable inasmuch as it is “an opinion that implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it’ “… . The answer thus sufficiently states a counterclaim for defamation … . Sallustio v R. Kessler & Assoc., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07792, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

DEFAMATION (SIGN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SAYING THE DEFENDANT “SCREWED US BEWARE” WAS ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION, MOTION TO DISMISS THE DEFAMATION COUNTERCLAIM IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING CHARGES, INSTRUMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the “offering a false instrument for filing” charges should not have been dismissed based upon the evidence presented to the grand jury. Defendant was a county employee who worked with a private company (Casella)  which managed a land fill under a contract with the county. The documents in question were submitted by the defendant to Casella. County Court found that the documents were submitted to a private party, not the government. The Fourth Department disagreed, finding a sufficient relationship between Casella and the county to support the charges:

​

“The essential elements of the crime of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree . . . are (1) knowledge that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, (2) intent to defraud the State or any political subdivision thereof, and (3) offering or presenting such instrument to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed” … . The term “public servant” is defined as “(a) any public officer or employee of the state or of any political subdivision thereof or of any governmental instrumentality within the state, or (b) any person exercising the functions of any such public officer or employee” … .

Here, we agree with the People that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish that Casella, in accepting the reports from defendant for purposes of complying with the County’s permit issued by the State, was “not acting as a private concern” but rather was exercising a governmental function as an agent of the County … , and thus was acting as a public servant within the meaning of the statute. In addition, we conclude that the evidence before the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the People… , was sufficient to allow the grand jury to infer that defendant intended to defraud the County by submitting reports with fabricated information while still receiving a salary as a County employee … . People v Rafferty, 2017 NY Slip Op 07797, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING CHARGES, INSTRUMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING CHARGES, INSTRUMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING CHARGES, INSTRUMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial on the assault and unlawful imprisonment charges and reached a prosecutorial misconduct issue in the interest of justice (error not preserved). The prosecutorial misconduct, referring to evidence (a bloody t-shirt) which had been destroyed, was not deemed reversible. The Fourth Department found that a jury instruction on assault allowed the jury to consider a theory about how the victim was injured which was not charged in the indictment. Such an error affects the fundamental right to be tried only on what has been charged and need not be preserved. The Fourth Department also found that the evidence supported both the charged and a lesser included unlawful imprisonment offenses. The judge’s refusal to charge the jury on the lesser included was reversible error:

​

… [The] conviction of assault in the second degree must be reversed because Supreme Court’s instruction created the possibility that the jury convicted him upon a theory different from the one charged in the indictment. … As a preliminary matter, we reject the People’s contention that defendant was required to preserve his contention for our review. It is well settled that ” defendant has a “fundamental and nonwaivable” right to be tried only on the crimes charged’ ” … . With respect to the merits of defendant’s contention, “[w]here the court’s jury instruction on a particular count erroneously contains an additional theory that differs from the theory alleged in the indictment, as limited by the bill of particulars, and the evidence adduced at trial could have established either theory, reversal of the conviction on that count is required because there is a possibility that the jury could have convicted the defendant upon the uncharged theory” … . We may not apply harmless error analysis to such an error because it would be impossible to determine whether the jury based its guilty verdict on the uncharged theory … . People v Barber, 2017 NY Slip Op 07807, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS CRIMINAL LAW, JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES  (JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER UNCHARGED OFFENSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR THAT NEED NOT BE PRESERVED, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DESTROYED (FOURTH DEPT))

STREET STOP JUSTIFIED, FACTS AND LAW EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in finding the street stop of defendant was justified, provided a useful, detailed discussion of the facts and the law (too detailed to summarize here):

​

… [W]e agree with the People that the officer had at least the requisite founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and thus that his initial approach of defendant was proper under level two.

When defendant then immediately fled, the officer pursued him, which was a level three intrusion requiring reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed or was committing a crime. “In determining whether a pursuit was justified by reasonable suspicion, the emphasis should not be narrowly focused on . . . any . . . single factor, but [rather should be based] on an evaluation of the totality of circumstances, which takes into account the realities of everyday life unfolding before a trained officer” … . We also note that, although “flight alone is insufficient to justify pursuit, defendant’s flight in response to an approach by the police, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, may give rise to reasonable suspicion, the necessary predicate for police pursuit’ ” … . Here, we agree with the People that the specific information known to the officer, coupled with the officer’s observations of defendant’s actions, furtive behavior, and immediate flight, gave the officer reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was engaged in criminal activity, thereby justifying the officer’s pursuit, detainment, and search of defendant.  People v Jones, 2017 NY Slip Op 07808, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP JUSTIFIED, FACTS AND LAW EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (FOURTH DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOP JUSTIFIED, FACTS AND LAW EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (FOURTH DEPT))

,

SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s welfare fraud conviction, determined the statute required that the fraud involve a program administered by the department of social services. Here the fraud involved the federal section eight housing subsidy program, which was not administered by the department of social services:

​

… [D]efendant’s interpretation of the statutory definition of public assistance benefits is supported by the legislative history of the statute, which shows that it was enacted primarily to combat Medicaid fraud … , and Medicaid benefits are administered by the department of social services or social services district. In addition, we note that the People’s interpretation of the statute would extend its reach beyond its intended meaning to include any “money, property or services provided directly or indirectly through programs of the federal government,” without qualification … For example, under the People’s interpretation, veteran’s benefits would be “money, property or services” falling within the definition of “[p]ublic assistance benefits” … , but it seems unlikely that the Legislature intended the improper receipt of such benefits to be considered welfare fraud.

We conclude that both [the People’s and defendant’s] interpretations of the statute are plausible. In such situations, the rule of lenity applies and we must adopt the interpretation of the statute that is more favorable to defendant … . The People were therefore required to establish that the Section 8 funds were “administered by the department of social services” … , which they failed to do. People v Davis, 2017 NY Slip Op 07800, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT))/WELFARE FRAUD (CRIMINAL LAW, SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT)))/SECTION EIGHT (CRIMINAL LAW, WELFARE FRAUD, SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT))

SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE A FELONY COMPLAINT WAS NOT DISMISSED UNTIL AFTER THE PLEA TO THE SCI (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by waiver of indictment and plea to a superior court information (SCI), noted that defendant was still charged with an A felony at the time of the waiver and plea. The A felony complaint was not dismissed until after the plea:

​

In a prior appeal, we reversed the judgment of conviction, determining that the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective inasmuch as defendant had been charged with, inter alia, a class A felony and thus could not validly waive indictment or consent to be prosecuted by an SCI … . We thus vacated the plea and waiver of indictment and dismissed the SCI, noting that ” the People may present the case to the [g]rand [j]ury’ ” … .

​

On remittal, the People did not present the case to a grand jury but, rather, made a second attempt to proceed by SCI. As the People correctly concede, the SCI is again jurisdictionally defective inasmuch as the felony complaint charging defendant with the class A felony was not dismissed until after the waiver of indictment and plea to the SCI. As a result, defendant was still “charged” with a class A felony when he waived indictment and consented to be prosecuted by an SCI. “Where, as here, a defendant is charged with a class A felony, the defendant cannot validly waive indictment or consent to be prosecuted by a superior court information” … . We therefore vacate defendant’s plea and his waiver of indictment, and we dismiss the SCI, noting again that ” the People may present the case to the [g]rand [j]ury’ ” … . People v Priest, 2017 NY Slip Op 07859, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE A FELONY COMPLAINT WAS NOT DISMISSED UNTIL AFTER THE PLEA TO THE SCI (FOURTH DEPT))/WAIVER OF INDICTMENT (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE A FELONY COMPLAINT WAS NOT DISMISSED UNTIL AFTER THE PLEA TO THE SCI (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE A FELONY COMPLAINT WAS NOT DISMISSED UNTIL AFTER THE PLEA TO THE SCI (FOURTH DEPT))

BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED, SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant was entitled to a sentence which comported with his expectations based upon the plea agreement. The Fourth Department vacated his sentence. It turned out defendant could not be credited with jail time in accordance with the plea agreement:

​

The promise with respect to jail time credit … could not be fulfilled. Penal Law § 70.30 (3) provides that “[t]he term of a definite sentence . . . imposed on a person shall be credited with and diminished by the amount of time the person spent in custody prior to the commencement of such sentence as a result of the charge that culminated in the sentence.” Such credit, however, “shall not include any time that is credited against the term . . . of any previously imposed sentence . . . to which the person is subject” … . Thus, “a person is prohibited from receiving jail time credit against a subsequent sentence when such credit has already been applied to time served on a previous sentence’ “… . The correctional facility to which defendant was committed therefore properly determined that defendant was prohibited from receiving jail time credit against his sentence on the conviction of attempted CPCS in the fourth degree for the time that he had served between sentencing on the prior conviction and the subsequent sentencing proceeding … .

​

It is well established that ” [a] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored’ ” … . ” The choice rests in the discretion of the sentencing court’ and there is no indicated preference for one course over the other’ ” … . Where, as here, “the originally promised sentence cannot be imposed in strict compliance with the plea agreement, the sentencing court may impose another lawful sentence that comports with the defendant’s legitimate expectations” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to impose a sentence that comports with defendant’s legitimate expectations of the negotiated plea agreement or to afford defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. People v Drake, 2017 NY Slip Op 07844, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED, SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT))PLEA AGREEMENT (SENTENCING, BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED, SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (CRIMINAL LAW, PLEA AGREEMENT, BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED, SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH 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