detailed written waiver in New York

2025Moreover, any alleged ambiguity in the oral colloquy was cured by the detailed written waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Ramos , 7 NY3d 737, 738 ; People v Batista , 167 AD3d at 75).

2024Any suggestion by the court that the waiver constituted an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal was cured by the detailed written waiver, which clarified that appellate review remained available for certain issues ( see People v Ramos , 7 NY3d 737 , 738 [2006]; People v Walker , 206 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1191 [2022]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). “ ‘Although County Court’s colloquy was brief, defendant signed a detailed written waiver of the right to appeal . . . , and he acknowledged to the court that he understood that he was foregoing the right to appeal’ ” (People v Bridenbaker, 112 AD3d 1379 , 1380 [2013]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). “ ‘Although County Court’s colloquy was brief, defendant signed a detailed written waiver of the right to appeal . . . , and he acknowledged to the court that he understood that he was foregoing the right to appeal’ ” (People v Bridenbaker, 112 AD3d 1379 , 1380 [2013]).

2022The detailed written waiver that defendant executed with counsel cannot save the numerous errors in the court's oral colloquy, as "'a written waiver is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal'" ( People v Oquendo , 105 AD3d 447 , 448 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1007 [2013], quoting People v Bradshaw , 76 AD3d 566 , 569 [2d Dept 2010], affd 18 NY3d 257 [2011]).

2022The detailed written waiver that defendant executed with counsel cannot save the numerous errors in the court's oral colloquy, as "'a written waiver is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal'" ( People v Oquendo , 105 AD3d 447 , 448 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1007 [2013], quoting People v Bradshaw , 76 AD3d 566 , 569 [2d Dept 2010], affd 18 NY3d 257 [2011]).

2022The record of the plea proceeding, taken together with a detailed written waiver that defendant reviewed with his counsel, and that fully explained the appellate rights defendant was giving up, established that the waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied 589 US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Bryant , 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]).

2021The court's colloquy with defendant, taken together with a detailed written waiver, established that the waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied US, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Bryant , 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; see also People v Dilworth , AD3d_, 2020 NY Slip Op 07720 [1st Dept 2020]).

2021The oral colloquy, taken together with a detailed written waiver, sufficiently explained that the waiver was comprehensive ( see People v Kemp , 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and the explanation was not misleading.

2021The oral colloquy, taken together with a detailed written waiver, sufficiently explained that the waiver was comprehensive ( see People v Kemp , 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and the explanation was not misleading.

2018Defendant then reviewed a detailed written waiver with counsel and executed it in open court, after which he unequivocally confirmed his understanding thereof ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]; People v Welden , 156 AD3d 1241, 1241 [2017]).

2017While it would have been better practice for County Court to have confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and had read the written waiver before signing it, the relevant facts and circumstances—including defendant’s prior experience with the criminal justice system, the oral colloquy and the detailed written waiver—demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; People v Empey, 144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]; Peopl

2018County Court [*2](Richards, J.) explained that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendant was forfeiting ( see People v Cayon , 158 AD3d 946 , 947 [2018], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [May 30, 2018]; People v Tulip , 150 AD3d 1564, 1565 [2017]); after assuring the court that he could read, defendant reviewed and executed a detailed written waiver in open court, wherein he expressly waived the right to challenge the severity of his sentence and, in response to further inquiry by County Court, indicated that he had been afforded an opportun

2018County Court [*2](Richards, J.) explained that the waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that defendant was forfeiting ( see People v Cayon , 158 AD3d 946 , 947 [2018], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [May 30, 2018]; People v Tulip , 150 AD3d 1564, 1565 [2017]); after assuring the court that he could read, defendant reviewed and executed a detailed written waiver in open court, wherein he expressly waived the right to challenge the severity of his sentence and, in response to further inquiry by County Court, indicated that he had been afforded an opportun

2017While it would have been better practice for County Court to have confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and had read the written waiver before signing it, the relevant facts and circumstances—including defendant’s prior experience with the criminal justice system, the oral colloquy and the detailed written waiver—demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; People v Empey, 144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]; Peopl

2017While it would have been better practice for County Court to have confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and had read the written waiver before signing it, the relevant facts and circumstances — including defendant's prior experience with the criminal justice system, the oral colloquy and the detailed written waiver — demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily [*2]waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; People v Empey , 144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2

2014Accordingly, defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Marshall, 108 AD3d 884, 884 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Musser, 106 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 997 [2013]; People v Joyce, 91 AD3d 986, 986-987 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 864 [2012]).

2014Accordingly, defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Marshall, 108 AD3d 884, 884 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]; People v Musser, 106 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 997 [2013]; People v Joyce, 91 AD3d 986, 986-987 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 864 [2012]).

2013Accordingly, we conclude that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256 ; People v Lopez, 97 AD3d 853, 853 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1027 [2012]).

2013Accordingly, we conclude that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256 ; People v Lopez, 97 AD3d 853, 853 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1027 [2012]).

2012Defendant thus validly waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, which precludes our review of his claims that the sentence was harsh and excessive and that the agreed-upon sum of restitution ordered lacked sufficient record support (see People v Lopez, 97 AD3d 853, 853-854 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1027 [2012]; People v Dishaw, 81 AD3d 1035, 1037 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 858 [2011]).

2012Defendant thus validly waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, which precludes our review of his claims that the sentence was harsh and excessive and that the agreed-upon sum of restitution ordered lacked sufficient record support (see People v Lopez, 97 AD3d 853, 853-854 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1027 [2012]; People v Dishaw, 81 AD3d 1035, 1037 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 858 [2011]).

2011Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant’s appeal waiver was a knowing, intelligent and voluntary one (see People v Empey, 73 AD3d 1387, 1388 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 804 [2010]; People v Thomas, 71 AD3d 1231, 1231-1232 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 893 [2010]).

2011Defendant also executed a detailed written waiver in open court, assisted by counsel, which described the ramifications of the waiver and acknowledged that defendant was knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right to appeal after being given sufficient time to discuss its consequences with counsel (see People v Thomas, 71 AD3d 1231, 1231 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 893 [2010]; People v Gilmour, 61 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 925 [2009]).

2026Defendant's suggestion that his "waiver cannot apply to his [further] challenge to the severity of the sentence because he was not specifically advised at the time of his plea of the maximum sentence he could face" is belied by the record and would, in any event, be meritless because "there [was] a specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver" that was honored ( People v Grant , 294 AD2d 671 , 672 [3d Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 730 [2002]; see People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Fusco , 74 AD3d 1583, 1584 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; compare People v

2013The valid waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]).

2017“Even if there were any ambiguity in the . . . court’s colloquy, defendant executed a detailed written waiver” (People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; cf. Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at 266-267 ), and the court’s “ ‘plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v Arney, 120 AD3d 949, 949 [2014]; see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; People v Buske, 87 AD3d 1354, 1354 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 882 [2012]).

2017“Even if there were any ambiguity in the . . . court’s colloquy, defendant executed a detailed written waiver” (People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; cf. Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at 266-267 ), and the court’s “ ‘plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v Arney, 120 AD3d 949, 949 [2014]; see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; People v Buske, 87 AD3d 1354, 1354 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 882 [2012]).

2017“Even if there were any ambiguity in the . . . court’s colloquy, defendant executed a detailed written waiver” (People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; cf. Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at 266-267 ), and the court’s “ ‘plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v Arney, 120 AD3d 949, 949 [2014]; see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; People v Buske, 87 AD3d 1354, 1354 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 882 [2012]).

2017“Even if there were any ambiguity in the . . . court’s colloquy, defendant executed a detailed written waiver” (People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; cf. Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at 266-267 ), and the court’s “ ‘plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal, adequately apprised defendant that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v Arney, 120 AD3d 949, 949 [2014]; see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; People v Buske, 87 AD3d 1354, 1354 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 882 [2012]).

2024Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, he failed to preserve his challenge to the order of protection ( see People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]; People v Key , 222 AD3d 536 [2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 943 [2024]; People v Rivera , 212 AD3d at 471).

2024Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, he failed to preserve his challenge to the order of protection ( see People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]; People v Key , 222 AD3d 536 [2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 943 [2024]; People v Rivera , 212 AD3d at 471).

2020Although the better practice would have been for County Court to "confirm[] that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and had read the written waiver before signing it, the relevant facts and circumstances — including defendant's prior experience with the criminal justice system, the oral colloquy and the detailed written waiver — demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence" ( People v Lavalley , 150 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2017]; see People v Gagnon , 153 AD3d at 1452 ).

2020Although the better practice would have been for County Court to "confirm[] that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and had read the written waiver before signing it, the relevant facts and circumstances — including defendant's prior experience with the criminal justice system, the oral colloquy and the detailed written waiver — demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence" ( People v Lavalley , 150 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2017]; see People v Gagnon , 153 AD3d at 1452 ).

2018We therefore find that defendant's combined oral and written waiver of the right to appeal was valid ( see People v Hutchison , 151 AD3d 1481, 1482 [2017]; People v Tulip , 150 AD3d 1564, 1565 [2017]; People v Simon , 140 AD3d 1533, 1534 [2016]; People v Smith , 123 AD3d 1375 , 1375-1376 [2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 935 [2015]).

2017In view of the foregoing, defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Morgan, 142 AD3d 1253, 1253 [2016]; People v Simon, 140 AD3d 1533, 1534 [2016]).

2017While it would have been better practice for County Court to have confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and had read the written waiver before signing it, the relevant facts and circumstances—including defendant’s prior experience with the criminal justice system, the oral colloquy and the detailed written waiver—demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; People v Empey, 144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2017]; Peopl

2017While it would have been better practice for County Court to have confirmed that defendant had discussed the waiver with counsel and had read the written waiver before signing it, the relevant facts and circumstances — including defendant's prior experience with the criminal justice system, the oral colloquy and the detailed written waiver — demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily [*2]waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; People v Empey , 144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1144 [2

2017As defendant’s understanding of the waiver is established on the record, his sole contention on appeal, that the sentence is unduly harsh, is precluded (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256 ; People v Mann, 140 AD3d 1532, 1533 [2016]; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 266-267 [2011]).

2017As defendant’s understanding of the waiver is established on the record, his sole contention on appeal, that the sentence is unduly harsh, is precluded (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256 ; People v Mann, 140 AD3d 1532, 1533 [2016]; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 266-267 [2011]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s contention that the appeal waiver was limited and allowed a challenge to the severity of his sentence, the record reflects that he signed a detailed written waiver in open court stating that it included any challenge to the sever ity of the sentence (see People v Yaw, 120 AD3d 1447, 1448 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1005 [2014]; People v Fling, 112 AD3d 1001 , 1002 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1020 [2014]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]).

2017Contrary to defendant's contention that the appeal waiver was limited and allowed a challenge to the severity of his sentence, the record reflects that he signed a detailed written waiver in open court stating that it included any challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see People v Yaw , 120 AD3d 1447, 1448 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1005 [2014]; People v Fling , 112 AD3d 1001 , 1002 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1020 [2014]; cf. People v Maracle 19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]).

2015Initially, we note that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was valid inasmuch as County Court “distinguished the right to appeal from the rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea and explained the consequences of defendant’s plea,” and defendant then reviewed and executed a detailed written waiver with counsel in open court (People v Chavis, 117 AD3d 1193, 1194 [2014]; see People v Koumjian, 101 AD3d 1175, 1175 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1100 [2013]).

2015Initially, we note that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was valid inasmuch as County Court “distinguished the right to appeal from the rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea and explained the consequences of defendant’s plea,” and defendant then reviewed and executed a detailed written waiver with counsel in open court (People v Chavis, 117 AD3d 1193, 1194 [2014]; see People v Koumjian, 101 AD3d 1175, 1175 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1100 [2013]).