factual basis claim in New York

1993It is settled law that while a factual basis inquiry is one means of assuring that a plea of guilty is voluntary and intelligent, it is not a constitutional requirement (see, People v Nance, 110 AD2d 857 ; Willbright v Smith, 745 F2d 779).

1991It is settled law that while a factual basis inquiry is one means of assuring that a guilty plea is voluntary and intelligent, it is not a constitutional requirement (see, People v Nance, 110 AD2d 857 ; Willbright v Smith, 745 F2d 779).

2017As a result, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a factual recitation of the underlying circumstances of the crime if there is no suggestion that the plea of guilty was improvident or baseless ( see Winbush , 199 AD2d at 448 ; People v Lowe , 149 AD2d 939 [1989]; People v Richardson , 114 AD2d 980 [1985]; People v Nance , 110 AD2d 857 [1985]).

1993Thus, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a factual recitation of the underlying circumstances of the crime if there is no suggestion that the plea of guilty was improvident or baseless (see, People v Richardson, 114 AD2d 980 ; People v Perkins, 89 AD2d 956 ; see also, People v Lowe, 149 AD2d 939 ).

2016Here, the representation by the prosecutor, that no prior statements of the subject witness requested by defense counsel existed, satisfied the prosecutor’s burden, since the defendant could not articulate a factual basis for his claim that the prosecutor improperly denied the existence of such statements (see People v Poole, 48 NY2d 144, 149 [1979]; People v Rodriguez, 270 AD2d 505 [2000]; People v Perez, 209 AD2d 643, 644 [1994]).

2003In view of the foregoing, it cannot be said that defense counsel articulated a factual basis for his claim that the People improperly denied the existence of any statements of the witnesses (see People v Rodriguez, 270 AD2d 505 [2000]; see also People v Poole, 48 NY2d 144 [1979]).

2010As an alternative holding, we find that defendants’ claim is unreviewable on the existing record, since defendants forfeited the opportunity to develop a factual basis for their claim that the police communications constituted Brady or Rosario material (see People v Ligon, 66 AD3d 516 [2009]; People v Lorenzo, 272 AD2d 184 [2000]).

2009Defendant’s claim that the People violated the disclosure requirements of People v Rosario ( 9 NY2d 286, 289 [1961]) is unreviewable, because nothing in the record indicates that the undisclosed police documents at issue contained anything pertaining to a witness’s testimony, and because defendant forfeited the opportunity to develop a factual basis for his claim during trial (see People v Pines, 298 AD2d 179, 180 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 562 [2002]; People v Lorenzo, 272 AD2d 184 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 855 [2000]).

2002The application court was entitled to rely on this representation in finding that petitioner did not take an administrative appeal, “particularly since the petitioner failed to offer a factual basis for his claim to the contrary” (Matter of Calvin K. of Oakknoll v De Francesco, 200 AD2d 619, 619 , lv denied 83 NY2d 756 ).

1998(See, Matter of Corbin v Ward, 160 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Calvin K. of Oakknoll v De Francesco, 200 AD2d 619 , supra.) Accordingly, petitioner’s CPLR article 78 application is denied in its entirety, and the proceeding dismissed.

1998(Matter of Smith v Capasso, supra; Matter of Fink, v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567 .) The petitioner has failed to offer a factual basis for his claim to the contrary (see, Matter of Ahlers v Dillon, 143 AD2d 225 ) but, instead, offered only speculation regarding the respondents’ failure to locate a file from 10 years ago.

1994The Supreme Court did not err in relying on this representation, particularly since the petitioner failed to offer a factual basis for his claim to the contrary (see, Matter of Ahlers v Dillon, 143 AD2d 225 ; see also, People v Poole, 48 NY2d 144 ) but, instead, offered only speculation (see, Matter of Corbin v Ward, 160 AD2d 596 ).

1993Thus, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a factual recitation of the underlying circumstances of the crime if there is no suggestion that the plea of guilty was improvident or baseless (see, People v Richardson, 114 AD2d 980 ; People v Perkins, 89 AD2d 956 ; see also, People v Lowe, 149 AD2d 939 ).

1991Thus, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a factual recitation of the underlying circumstances of the crime if there is no suggestion in the record or dehors the record that the guilty plea was improvident or baseless (see, People v Richardson, 114 AD2d 980 ; People v Perkins, 89 AD2d 956 ; see also, People v Lowe, 149 AD2d 939 ).

1988As a general rule, where the plaintiffs properly challenge the factual basis of a defense, the burden falls upon the defendant to come forth with sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact with respect to the defense (see, Leonard v Leonard, 31 AD2d 620 ).

1986(Leonard v Leonard, 31 AD2d 620 .) Since defendants have come forward with evidence and raised an issue of fact, a resolution of this question must await a jury, and, therefore, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss defendants’ third affirmative defense is denied.

2019On this record, defendant failed to establish a factual basis for his claim that he was denied the right to equal protection under the law ( see id. ).

2019Finally, defendant's contention that the sentence was harsh and excessive is precluded by his appeal waiver ( see People v Dobbs , 157 AD3d 1122 , 1122-1123 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 983 [2018]).

2018Moreover, County Court did not address defendant's request in its decision on the motion to suppress and, "[b]y acquiescing in the lack of a ruling," defendant effectively abandoned any request for a Darden hearing ( People v Bigelow , 68 AD3d 1127 , 1128 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 797 [2010]; see People v Green , 90 AD3d 1151 , 1152 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 994 [2012]).

2018Moreover, County Court did not address defendant's request in its decision on the motion to suppress and, "[b]y acquiescing in the lack of a ruling," defendant effectively abandoned any request for a Darden hearing ( People v Bigelow , 68 AD3d 1127 , 1128 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 797 [2010]; see People v Green , 90 AD3d 1151 , 1152 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 994 [2012]).

2018Although defendant requested a Darden hearing in the notice of motion accompanying his omnibus motion, he did not set forth a factual basis for such hearing ( see People v Hamilton , 276 AD2d 715 , 716 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 759 [2001]; see generally People v Mendoza , 82 NY2d 415, 421-422 [1993]).

2015Defendant demonstrated a factual basis for its defense and that the “ ‘discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the [defense]’ ” (see Abrams v Pecile, 83 AD3d 527 , 528 [1st Dept 2011]).

2015As to plaintiff’s request to designate the sought information for “outside counsel eyes only,” the parties are not business competitors (see Matter of Bernstein v On-Line Software Intl., 232 AD2d 336 , 337 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 810 [1997]), and plaintiff’s claim that permitting an in-house counsel of defendant to view the information “would visit needless competitive harm on [plaintiff]” is conclusory.

2015However, as the phrase “excluding construction equipment,” in the context of the ordinance, can as readily be construed to state a complete exception to the parking prohibition set forth in sec tion 77-38 (D) (2) where construction equipment is concerned (see People v Santana, 7 NY3d 234 [2006]), the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.