Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Newton
That contention is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see generally People v Hicks, 128 AD3d 1358 , 1359 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 999 [2016]; People v Rios, 93 AD3d 1349, 1349 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 966 [2012]), and is therefore encompassed by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]; People v Peters, 59 AD3d 928, 928 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 820 [2009]; see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Newton
That contention is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see generally People v Hicks, 128 AD3d 1358 , 1359 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 999 [2016]; People v Rios, 93 AD3d 1349, 1349 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 966 [2012]), and is therefore encompassed by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]; People v Peters, 59 AD3d 928, 928 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 820 [2009]; see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Dale
Defendant’s contention that his plea was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent because he did not recite the underlying facts of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty and merely gave monosyllabic responses to the court’s questions is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, which is encompassed by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hawkins
Those contentions are actually addressed to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and defendant failed to preserve them for our review by moving to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]; People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Buske
The further contention of defendant that her plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because she did not recite the underlying facts of the crime to which she pleaded guilty is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution and thus is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858, 1859 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 778 [2010]; People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hauke
Those contentions are actually challenges to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and defendant failed to preserve her contentions for our review by moving to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]; People v Bailey, 49 AD3d 1258 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 932 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ruffins
Defendant in effect is thereby challenging the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and that challenge therefore is encompassed by defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1436 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]; Brown, 66 AD3d at 1385 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
WITKOP, SHAWN B., PEOPLE v
We conclude, therefore, that the court properly denied defendant’s motion without a hearing because, “given the nature of the claimed ineffective assistance, the motion could be determined on the trial record and defendant’s submissions on the motion” (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 ; see People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1437 , lv denied 14 NY3d 888 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Witkop
We conclude, therefore, that the court properly denied defendant’s motion without a hearing because, “given the nature of the claimed ineffective assistance, the motion could be determined on the trial record and defendant’s submissions on the motion” (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; see People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1437 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Witkop
We conclude, therefore, that the court properly denied defendant’s motion without a hearing because, “given the nature of the claimed ineffective assistance, the motion could be determined on the trial record and defendant’s submissions on the motion” (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; see People v Jamison, 71 AD3d 1435, 1437 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gordon
(2×)
Defendant’s contention “that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary ‘because he did not recite the underlying facts of the crime but simply replied to County Court’s questions with monosyllabic responses is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution’ ” (People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858, 1859 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 778 [2010]; see People v Brown, 66 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 839 [2010]). “[Defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by moving to withdraw the plea or ... to vacate the judgment of conviction” …
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gordon
(2×)
Defendant’s contention “that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary ‘because he did not recite the underlying facts of the crime but simply replied to County Court’s questions with monosyllabic responses is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution’ ” (People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858, 1859 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 778 [2010]; see People v Brown, 66 AD3d 1385, 1385 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 839 [2010]). “[Defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by moving to withdraw the plea or ... to vacate the judgment of conviction” …
discussed
Cited "see"
GORDON, JERMAINE J., PEOPLE v
(2×)
Defendant’s contention “that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary ‘because he did not recite the underlying facts of the crime but simply replied to County Court’s questions with monosyllabic responses is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution’ ” (People v Simcoe, 74 AD3d 1858, 1859 , lv denied 15 NY3d 778 ; see People v Brown, 66 AD3d 1385, 1385 , lv denied 14 NY3d 839 ). “[D]efendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by moving to withdraw the plea or . . . to vacate the judgment of conviction” (People v Jamison, 71…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Arbitration between GEICO Insurance Company, and Sharon Pierce
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 19, 2010.
Published
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Drury, J.), entered February 19, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order determined that New York law applies to this proceeding.
Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on January 26, 2010, and filed in the Erie County Clerk’s Office on February 10, 2010,
It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley and Green, JJ.