People v. Hoyt, 107 A.D.3d 1426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Hoyt, 107 A.D.3d 1426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases · …the court afforded defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning defense counsel, and the court thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant's objections were without merit at p. 1427 ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
27 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Rodriguez-Ricardo (nyappdiv, 2021-12-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rodriguez-Ricardo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
As defendant correctly concedes, his contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the duration of the order of protection at sentencing ( see People v Hoyt , 107 AD3d 1426, 1426 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]), and we decline to exercise our power to review the contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s complaints about defense counsel “suggest [ed] a serious possibility of good cause for the substitution [of counsel]” and thereby established a need for further inquiry (People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]), we conclude that “the court afforded defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning defense counsel, and the court thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant’s objections were without merit” (People v Bethany, 144 AD3d 1666, 1669 [2016]; see Fae…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s complaints about defense counsel “suggest [ed] a serious possibility of good cause for the substitution [of counsel]” and thereby established a need for further inquiry (People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]), we conclude that “the court afforded defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning defense counsel, and the court thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant’s objections were without merit” (People v Bethany, 144 AD3d 1666, 1669 [2016]; see Fae…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s complaints about defense counsel “suggest [ed] a serious possibility of good cause for the substitution [of counsel]” and thereby established a need for further inquiry (People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]), we conclude that “the court afforded defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning defense counsel, and the court thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant’s objections were without merit” (People v Bethany, 144 AD3d 1666, 1669 [2016]; see Fae…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gibson (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Although the mere complaint by a defendant that communications have broken down between him and his lawyer is not, by itself, good cause for a change in counsel (see People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013]), where a complete breakdown has been established, substitution is required (see Sides, 75 NY2d at 824-825 ; People v White, 288 AD2d 839, 839 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 689 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gibson (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Although the mere complaint by a defendant that communications have broken down between him and his lawyer is not, by itself, good cause for a change in counsel (see People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1427 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013]), where a complete breakdown has been established, substitution is required (see Sides, 75 NY2d at 824-825 ; People v White, 288 AD2d 839, 839 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 689 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mike
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals in Lingle explicitly rejected defendant’s present contention that he had served a significant portion of his sentence and thus had a reasonable expectation of the finality of his sentence (see id. at 630-631 ; People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1428 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mike
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals in Lingle explicitly rejected defendant’s present contention that he had served a significant portion of his sentence and thus had a reasonable expectation of the finality of his sentence (see id. at 630-631 ; People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1428 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cook
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
As defendant correctly concedes, his contentions are unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the duration of the order of protection at sentencing (see People v Hoyt, 107 AD3d 1426, 1426 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; People v Decker, 77 AD3d 675, 675 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 952 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cook
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
As defendant correctly concedes, his contentions are unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the duration of the order of protection at sentencing (see People v Hoyt, 107 AD3d 1426, 1426 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; People v Decker, 77 AD3d 675, 675 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 952 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred in failing to take into account three days of jail time credit to which she is entitled in determining the duration of the order of protection, and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v Hoyt, 107 AD3d 1426, 1426 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; People v Owens, 66 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 772 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred in failing to take into account three days of jail time credit to which she is entitled in determining the duration of the order of protection, and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v Hoyt, 107 AD3d 1426, 1426 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; People v Owens, 66 AD3d 1428, 1428-1429 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 772 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Martinez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant’s contention that the order of protection should be modified to take into account jail time credit is not preserved for our review (see People v Hoyt, 107 AD3d 1426, 1426 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; see generally People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Martinez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant’s contention that the order of protection should be modified to take into account jail time credit is not preserved for our review (see People v Hoyt, 107 AD3d 1426, 1426 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; see generally People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]).
discussed Cited "see" JONES, MELCHI N., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s complaints about defense counsel “suggest[ed] a serious possibility of good cause for the substitution [of counsel]” and thereby established a need for further inquiry (People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1427 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 [internal quotation marks omitted]), we conclude that “the court afforded defendant the opportunity to express his objections concerning defense counsel, and the court thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant’s objections were without merit” (People v Bethany, 144 AD3d 1666, 1669 ; see Faeth, 107 AD3d at 1427…
discussed Cited "see" GIBSON, JIMMY W., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
At the outset, I note that the court conducted an extensive inquiry into defendant’s allegations (see People v Smith, 18 NY3d 588, 592-593 ; cf. Sides, 75 NY2d at 825 ), which went beyond its “minimal inquiry” obligation (Sides, 75 NY2d at 825 ; see People v Faeth, 107 AD3d 1426, 1427 , lv denied 21 NY3d 1073 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Michael R. Hoyt
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 7, 2013.
107 A.D.3d 1426
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case, J.), rendered March 16, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his further contention that County Court erred in failing to take into account the jail time credit to which he is entitled in determining the duration of the order of protection (see People v Farrell, 71 AD3d 1507, 1507 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 804 [2010]). Nevertheless, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see id.). Present — Smith, J.P., Feradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.