absence of an evidentiary hearing in New York

1990Considering the totality of the circumstances herein, there was no error caused by the absence of an evidentiary hearing (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926 ).

1989Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the interrogation by the court, we find that no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 ; People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520, 525).

1993Given these circumstances and the fact that defendant was afforded an opportunity to state the basis for his withdrawal application, we find that no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing regarding defendant’s conclusory allegations of coercion and innocence of the crime to which he pleaded guilty (see, People v Ross, 182 AD2d 1022 , lv denied 80 NY2d 934 ; People v De Gaspard, 170 AD2d 835 , lv denied 77 NY2d 994 ; People v Morris, 107 AD2d 973 ).

1988Inasmuch as the defendant was afforded ample opportunity to state the basis for his withdrawal application, no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing with respect to his conclusory allegations that he was in fact innocent and that his fear of proceeding to trial had resulted in an involuntary guilty plea (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926 ; People v Morris, 107 AD2d 973, 975 ; People v Kelsch, supra, at 678 ), particularly in light of the fact that the defendant was not unfamiliar with the criminal justice system, having previously been convicted of a felony.

1993Given that defendant was afforded an opportunity to state the basis for his withdrawal motion, no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing regarding defendant’s conclusory assertions of innocence, coercion and distress (see, People v Ross, 182 AD2d 1022 , lv dismissed 80 NY2d 934 ; People v De Gaspard, supra).

1993Given these circumstances and the fact that defendant was afforded an opportunity to state the basis for his withdrawal application, we find that no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing regarding defendant’s conclusory allegations of coercion and innocence of the crime to which he pleaded guilty (see, People v Ross, 182 AD2d 1022 , lv denied 80 NY2d 934 ; People v De Gaspard, 170 AD2d 835 , lv denied 77 NY2d 994 ; People v Morris, 107 AD2d 973 ).

1988Inasmuch as the defendant was afforded ample opportunity to state the basis for his withdrawal application, no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing with respect to his conclusory allegations that he was in fact innocent and that his fear of proceeding to trial had resulted in an involuntary guilty plea (see, People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926 ; People v Morris, 107 AD2d 973, 975 ; People v Kelsch, supra, at 678 ), particularly in light of the fact that the defendant was not unfamiliar with the criminal justice system, having previously been convicted of a felony.

1987Inasmuch as the defendant was afforded ample opportunity to state the basis for his withdrawal application, no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing with respect to his conclusory allegations that the officer at the identification hearing had been lying or that the defendant did not feel that he was guilty (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 ; People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926 ; People v Morris, 107 AD2d 973, 975 ; People v Kelsch, supra, at 678 ).

2022Under Mental Hygiene Law § 81.28, the court has discretion to reduce or deny compensation to a guardian, and, therefore, a guardian does not have a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to commissions and fees which implicates the Due Process Clause ( see generally Morillo v City of New York , 178 AD2d 7, 12 [1st Dept 1992], appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 1039 [1992] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2012The presentence report provided the trial court with a sufficient evidentiary basis to determine the amount of the victims’ out-of-pocket losses, and a hearing was not required under these circumstances (see Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407, 411 [1998]; People v Charles, 309 AD2d 873, 874 [2003]; People v Stubbs, 281 AD2d 498, 499 [2001]; cf. People v Jackson, 261 AD2d 636 [1999]).

2009Furthermore, the court improperly held respondent in civil contempt in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, and because neither petitioner nor the court filed a petition alleging a violation of the temporary order of protection (see Family Ct Act §§ 846, 846-a; Matter of Janczuk v Janczuk, 305 AD2d 680 [2003]; see also James W.D. v Sandra C., 44 AD3d 423, 424 [2007]).

2006Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed the Village not to terminate or reduce such benefits without first conducting an evidentiary hearing (see Matter of Goglia v Sardino, 64 NY2d 1084 [1985]; Matter of Hodella v Chief of Police of Town of Greenburgh, 73 AD2d 967, 968 [1980]; cf. Matter of City of Cohoes [Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO], supra at 691-692; Matter of Park v Kapica, 25 AD3d 801 [2006]).

2006Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed the Village not to terminate or reduce such benefits without first conducting an evidentiary hearing (see Matter of Goglia v Sardino, 64 NY2d 1084 [1985]; Matter of Hodella v Chief of Police of Town of Greenburgh, 73 AD2d 967, 968 [1980]; cf. Matter of City of Cohoes [Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO], supra at 691-692; Matter of Park v Kapica, 25 AD3d 801 [2006]).

2003In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court had no basis for determining that the defendant’s brief appearance at a school play in which his son was performing was harmful to the welfare and safety of the children or contrary to their best interests (see Bagner v Bagner, 207 AD2d 367, 369 [1994]; Trigilio v Trigilio, 124 AD2d 971 [1986]; Pica v Pica, 96 AD2d 836, 837 [1983]; see also CPLR 6312 [c]).

1998Supreme Court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion (see, Matter of Grace PP., 245 AD2d 824 , lv denied 92 NY2d 807 ; see also, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 ) and we find no reason to alter its determinations.

1997Moreover, in light of the fact that defendant and his counsel were afforded an opportunity to address County Court on the withdrawal application, we find that no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s conclusory allegations of coercion and innocence to the crime to which he pleaded guilty (see, CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Evans, 193 AD2d 960, 961 ; People v Stone, 193 AD2d 838, 839 ; People v Wilmer, 191 AD2d 850, 851 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1022 ).

1997Moreover, in light of the fact that defendant and his counsel were afforded an opportunity to address County Court on the withdrawal application, we find that no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s conclusory allegations of coercion and innocence to the crime to which he pleaded guilty (see, CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Evans, 193 AD2d 960, 961 ; People v Stone, 193 AD2d 838, 839 ; People v Wilmer, 191 AD2d 850, 851 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1022 ).

1997Moreover, in light of the fact that defendant and his counsel were afforded an opportunity to address County Court on the withdrawal application, we find that no error resulted from the absence of an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s conclusory allegations of coercion and innocence to the crime to which he pleaded guilty (see, CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Evans, 193 AD2d 960, 961 ; People v Stone, 193 AD2d 838, 839 ; People v Wilmer, 191 AD2d 850, 851 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1022 ).

1996Although the defendant also claims that the imposed sentence was excessive, the defendant expressly waived his right to raise this claim on appeal pursuant to the valid waiver of appeal rights which he executed (see, People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ).

1996The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Dickerson, 163 AD2d 610 ).

1994In the absence of an evidentiary hearing to adduce competent evidence and resolve conflicts therein, this was error (see, U. S. Risk Managers v Gershuny, 141 AD2d 389, 390 ).