People v. LaPella, 93 N.Y.2d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. LaPella, 93 N.Y.2d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. Cty. Ct., Warren Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
See, CPL 440.30 [4][b]; People v. Session , 34 NY2d 254 , 357 N.Y.S.2d 409 , 313 N.E.2d 728 ; People v. Britt , 148 AD2d 911 , 539 N.Y.S.2d 540 ); People v LaPella , 185 AD2d 861, 862 [2d Dept. 1992] (To obtain a hearing on a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction, it is the defendant's burden as movant to come forward with allegations that raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to challenge the presumed validity of a judgment of conviction).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. Cty. Ct., Warren Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
See, CPL 440.30 [4][b]; People v. Session , 34 NY2d 254 , 357 N.Y.S.2d 409 , 313 N.E.2d 728 ; People v. Britt , 148 AD2d 911 , 539 N.Y.S.2d 540 ); People v LaPella , 185 AD2d 861, 862 [2d Dept. 1992] (To obtain a hearing on a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction, it is the defendant's burden as movant to come forward with allegations that raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to challenge the presumed validity of a judgment of conviction).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. White
N.Y. Cty. Ct., Warren Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
See, CPL 440.30 [4][b]; People v. Session , 34 NY2d 254 , 357 N.Y.S.2d 409 , 313 N.E.2d 728 ; People v. Britt , 148 AD2d 911 , 539 N.Y.S.2d 540 ); People v LaPella , 185 AD2d 861, 862 [2d Dept. 1992] (To obtain a hearing on a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction, it is the defendant's burden as movant to come forward with allegations that raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to challenge the presumed validity of a judgment of conviction).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Guaman
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
Here, the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was largely based upon unsubstantiated conclusory allegations and, thus, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 was properly denied without a hearing (see People v Brown, 56 NY2d at 246-247 ; People v Session, 34 NY2d at 256 ; People v Coleman, 37 AD3d 491 [2007]; People v Broxton, 34 AD3d at 492 ; People v LaPella, 185 AD2d 861, 862 [1992]).” (People v Waymon, 65 AD3d 708, 709 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 863 [2009].) Similarly, the First Department has held, where “defendant merely submitted his own affidavit and th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Waymon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Here, the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was largely based upon unsubstantiated conclusory allegations and, thus, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 was properly denied without a hearing (see People v Brown, 56 NY2d at 246-247 ; People v Session, 34 NY2d at 256 ; People v Coleman, 37 AD3d 491 [2007]; People v Broxton, 34 AD3d at 492 ; People v LaPella, 185 AD2d 861, 862 [1992]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Lake
N.Y. App. Div. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
Nevertheless, we find that the denial of that branch of the motion alleging a Brady claim was proper since the moving papers did not contain sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate that claim (CPL 440.30 [4] [b]; see, People v LaPella, 185 AD2d 861 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Peter LaPella
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 10, 1992.
✓ 93 N.Y.2d 849
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

— Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), dated August 30, 1990, which, without a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Bourgeois, J.), rendered October 23, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree and[*862] burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 without a hearing because the supporting affidavit of the codefendant Anthony DeChristopher set forth only conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations, inter alia, that DeChristopher did not believe that the defendant was guilty of the crimes of which the latter was convicted and that DeChristopher did not see the defendant commit these crimes. Without sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate all of the essential facts necessary to support such a motion, the court providently exercised its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing (CPL 440.30 [4] [b]; see, People v Session, 34 NY2d 254; People v Britt, 148 AD2d 911). These conclusory allegations were likewise insufficient to establish that the prosecutor had concealed exculpatory evidence (see, People v Brown, 56 NY2d 242). Indeed, DeChristopher’s affidavit did not explain any of the circumstances of the crime nor the defendant’s involvement therein. The defendant admitted at the trial that he was inside the apartment to purchase drugs. The tenant of the apartment identified the defendant, with whom she had been acquainted, as one of the armed men who robbed her and the other people found therein. It was during this robbery that one nonparticipant was shot and killed. Finally, even assuming that DeChristopher did make the statements he claimed to have made to the prosecutor prior to the defendant’s trial, the defense counsel knew DeChristopher’s name, knew that he had previously been tried and convicted of this felony murder, and could have contacted him directly to ascertain DeChristopher’s eyewitness account of events (cf., People v Bleakley, 141 AD2d 553, 555-556). Thompson, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.