vague claim in New York

2015County Court made no effort to explain the rights that defendant was giving up by pleading guilty, making nothing more than a passing reference to them when asking if defendant had “any questions.” County Court further failed to establish that “defendant consulted with his attorney about the constitutional consequences of a guilty plea,” instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel regarding “the plea bargain” and “the case” (People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365 ; compare People v Ocasio-Rosario, 120 AD3d 1463, 1464 [2014]).

2015County Court made no effort to explain the rights that defendant was giving up by pleading guilty, making nothing more than a passing reference to them when asking if defendant had “any questions.” County Court further failed to establish that “defendant consulted with his attorney about the constitutional consequences of a guilty plea,” instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel regarding “the plea bargain” and “the case” (People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365 ; compare People v Ocasio-Rosario, 120 AD3d 1463, 1464 [2014]).

2013In his suppression motion, defendant made only a vague challenge to the stated factual predicate for his arrest, and he did not assert any basis for suppression, or raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 728-729 [2001]).

2013In his suppression motion, defendant made only a vague challenge to the stated factual predicate for his arrest, and he did not assert any basis for suppression, or raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing (see People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 728-729 [2001]).

2018The court also failed to establish adequately that defendant had consulted with his counsel specifically about his relinquishment of trial-related rights or the consequences of his guilty plea, "instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel" ( People v Herbert , 147 AD3d 1208, 1210 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]) about "the indictment, . . . the drug charge, and anything else that [was] important to [him]" ( id. ; see People v Holmes , 162 AD3d at 1118; People v Lowe , 133 AD3d at 1101 ).

2017The court further failed to establish that defendant had consulted with his counsel about the trial-related rights that he was forfeiting by pleading guilty or the constitutional consequences of a guilty plea, “instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel” (People v Klinger, 129 AD3d at 1117 ) or had any questions of his counsel regarding his “rights,” “the plea bargain, the trial and anything else that [was] important to [him]” (see People v Lowe, 133 AD3d at 1101; People v Mones, 130 AD3d at 1245 ; People v Klinger, 129 AD3d at 1117 ).

2020"If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" ( Kihl v Pfeffer , 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; see Harrington v Palmer Mobile Homes, Inc ., 71 AD3d 1274, 1275 [3d Dept 2010]; see generally Brill v City of New York , 2 NY3d 648, 652-653 [2004]).

2020"If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" ( Kihl v Pfeffer , 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; see Harrington v Palmer Mobile Homes, Inc ., 71 AD3d 1274, 1275 [3d Dept 2010]; see generally Brill v City of New York , 2 NY3d 648, 652-653 [2004]).

2020"If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" ( Kihl v Pfeffer , 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; see Harrington v Palmer Mobile Homes, Inc ., 71 AD3d 1274, 1275 [3d Dept 2010]; see generally Brill v City of New York , 2 NY3d 648, 652-653 [2004]).

2018The court also failed to establish adequately that defendant had consulted with his counsel specifically about his relinquishment of trial-related rights or the consequences of his guilty plea, "instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel" ( People v Herbert , 147 AD3d 1208, 1210 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]) about "the indictment, . . . the drug charge, and anything else that [was] important to [him]" ( id. ; see People v Holmes , 162 AD3d at 1118; People v Lowe , 133 AD3d at 1101 ).

2018The court also failed to establish adequately that defendant had consulted with his counsel specifically about his relinquishment of trial-related rights or the consequences of his guilty plea, "instead making a vague inquiry into whether defendant had spoken to defense counsel" ( People v Herbert , 147 AD3d 1208, 1210 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]) about "the indictment, . . . the drug charge, and anything else that [was] important to [him]" ( id. ; see People v Holmes , 162 AD3d at 1118; People v Lowe , 133 AD3d at 1101 ).

2017With no affirmative showing on the record that defendant understood and waived his constitutional rights when he entered the guilty plea, the plea was invalid and must be vacated (see People v Lowe, 133 AD3d at 1101; People v Klinger, 129 AD3d at 1117 ; People v Vences, 125 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2015]).

2015With such a vague standard, this court was reluctant to employ it, particularly because section 2-b (3) cannot be used to “justify the exercise of powers not specifically bestowed” upon the court by the Constitution or the legislature (Doe v Smith, 29 Misc 3d 530, 535 [Sup Ct, Putnam County 2010, Ecker, J.]).

2015Co., 57 AD3d 1341, 1343 [2008]).

2015There is no indication that claimant did so or that any further Board proceedings were contemplated, however, and the physician’s vague instruction cannot be read as “display [ing] a clear intention ... to reopen the case” (Matter of Gregorec v Brenners Furniture Co., Inc., 68 AD3d 1301, 1303 [2009]; see Matter of Mucci v New York State *1276 Dept. of Corr., 98 AD3d 1223 , 1224 [2012]; Matter of Early v New York Tel.

2015There is no indication that claimant did so or that any further Board proceedings were contemplated, however, and the physician’s vague instruction cannot be read as “display [ing] a clear intention ... to reopen the case” (Matter of Gregorec v Brenners Furniture Co., Inc., 68 AD3d 1301, 1303 [2009]; see Matter of Mucci v New York State *1276 Dept. of Corr., 98 AD3d 1223 , 1224 [2012]; Matter of Early v New York Tel.

2015Rather, it is only to be invoked when the “ [legislature has created a vacuum” in which there are no available remedies (People v Thompson, 177 Misc 2d 803, 809 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1998, Kreindler, J.]).

2013(See Broida v Bancroft, 103 AD2d 88, 91 [2d Dept 1984] [“ ‘The vague principle that courts will not interfere with the internal affairs of a corporation whose foreignness is at best a metaphysical concept, must fall before the practical necessities of the modern business world’ (Note, 44 Harv L Rev 437, 439)”].) It is undisputed that virtually all of the parties, witnesses, evidence, and other affected parties (such as NYSE’s employees) are located in New York.

1990Where it is alleged that the prosecutor’s misconduct has caused a denial of due process, the "touchstone” of analysis "is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” (Smith v Phillips, 455 US 209, 219 [1982].) I do not believe, however, that the defendant suffered any prejudice, in this case, as a result of being prosecuted by a nonadmitted Assistant District Attorney, nor has any prejudice been pointed to — beyond a vague claim that there is an "overall taint of fraud”.