People v. Vega, 110 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Vega, 110 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Malak
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as Barsky neither disclosed whether he agreed to (or did in fact) take a polygraph test nor alluded to the results of any such test, we cannot say that County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial upon this ground (see People v Vredenburg, 110 AD2d 730, 730 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Malak
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as Barsky neither disclosed whether he agreed to (or did in fact) take a polygraph test nor alluded to the results of any such test, we cannot say that County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial upon this ground (see People v Vredenburg, 110 AD2d 730, 730 [1985]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Levandoski
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
"A statement obtained in violation of a defendant’s Miranda rights is inadmissible as evidence-in-chief but may be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility if the trustworthiness of the statement satisfies legal standards (Harris v New York, 401 US 222 ; see also, Oregon v Hass, 420 US 714 )” (People v Walker, 110 AD2d 730, 732 ; accord, People v Ricco, 56 NY2d 320 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
David Vega
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 8, 1985.
110 A.D.2d 730
Published

On this appeal, defendant contends that his plea of guilty should be vacated since he was not advised, at the taking of the plea, of his right to testify in his own behalf. Having failed either to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence or subsequent thereto pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant has not preserved for appellate review the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Mattocks, 100 AD2d 944; People v Ortiz, 105 AD2d 809). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur would not be required inasmuch as the allocution satisfied the requirements of People v Harris (61 NY2d 9; see, People v Schron, 109 AD2d 762; People v Velasquez, 107 AD2d 726). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.