assertions error in New York

2011The defendant’s assertions that defense counsel forced him to plead guilty and that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel are belied by his statements under oath on the record acknowledging that his plea had not been coerced and that the plea was being entered of his own free will (see People v Duncan, 78 AD3d 1193 [2010]; People v Turner, 23 AD3d 503 503-504 [2005]; People v Sloane, 13 AD3d 400 [2004]; People v Raymond, 3 AD3d 587 [2004]).

2011The defendant’s assertions that defense counsel forced him to plead guilty and that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel are belied by his statements under oath on the record acknowledging that his plea had not been coerced and that the plea was being entered of his own free will (see People v Douglas, 83 AD3d at 1093 ; People v Duncan, 78 AD3d 1193 [2010]).

2015Although the defendants failed to produce the subject IAB file in order to substantiate their claim that certain portions of that file are privileged and irrevelant, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its *1015 discretion in directing the disclosure of the complete IAB file without first requiring its production and reviewing it, in camera, so that the defendants’ assertions of privilege and irrelevance could be evaluated on the merits (see Ren Zheng Zheng v Bermeo, 114 AD3d 743, 744-745 [2014]; McFarlane v County of Suffolk, 79 AD3d at 708 ; Blanco

2011Further, “ ‘[t]he defendant expressed no dissatisfaction with his counsel at the time of the plea, after the court had fully apprised him of the consequences of pleading guilty’ ” (People v Douglas, 83 AD3d at 1093 , quoting People v Hall, 195 AD2d 521, 522 [1993]).

2011The defendant’s assertions that defense counsel forced him to plead guilty and that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel are belied by his statements under oath on the record acknowledging that his plea had not been coerced and that the plea was being entered of his own free will (see People v Douglas, 83 AD3d at 1093 ; People v Duncan, 78 AD3d 1193 [2010]).

2011The defendant’s assertions that defense counsel forced him to plead guilty and that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel are belied by his statements under oath on the record acknowledging that his plea had not been coerced and that the plea was being entered of his own free will (see People v Duncan, 78 AD3d 1193 [2010]; People v Turner, 23 AD3d 503 503-504 [2005]; People v Sloane, 13 AD3d 400 [2004]; People v Raymond, 3 AD3d 587 [2004]).

2002Concluding our consideration of the assertions of error aimed at the conviction on the first count of the indictment, we also reject defendant’s legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence challenges (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

2002Fisher and Fox both testified as to their subjective belief that the toy pistol displayed by defendant was a real firearm (see, People v Lopez, 73 NY2d 214 , supra).

2000As we stated in our consideration of Ireland’s appeal: “Although a defendant may challenge the competency of his or her legal representation despite a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Harris, 242 AD2d 782 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1008 ), the claim is limited to the impact of the alleged ineffective as sistance on the voluntariness of the guilty plea (see, People v Lynch, 256 AD2d 651 , lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 ; People v Ellett, 245 AD2d 952, 954 , lv denied 91 NY2d 925 ), and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that defendant’s plea was infected by any ine

2000As we stated in our consideration of Ireland’s appeal: “Although a defendant may challenge the competency of his or her legal representation despite a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Harris, 242 AD2d 782 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1008 ), the claim is limited to the impact of the alleged ineffective as sistance on the voluntariness of the guilty plea (see, People v Lynch, 256 AD2d 651 , lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 ; People v Ellett, 245 AD2d 952, 954 , lv denied 91 NY2d 925 ), and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that defendant’s plea was infected by any ine

2000As we stated in our consideration of Ireland’s appeal: “Although a defendant may challenge the competency of his or her legal representation despite a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Harris, 242 AD2d 782 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1008 ), the claim is limited to the impact of the alleged ineffective as sistance on the voluntariness of the guilty plea (see, People v Lynch, 256 AD2d 651 , lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 ; People v Ellett, 245 AD2d 952, 954 , lv denied 91 NY2d 925 ), and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that defendant’s plea was infected by any ine

2000As we stated in our consideration of Ireland’s appeal: “Although a defendant may challenge the competency of his or her legal representation despite a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Harris, 242 AD2d 782 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1008 ), the claim is limited to the impact of the alleged ineffective as sistance on the voluntariness of the guilty plea (see, People v Lynch, 256 AD2d 651 , lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 ; People v Ellett, 245 AD2d 952, 954 , lv denied 91 NY2d 925 ), and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that defendant’s plea was infected by any ine

1999Next, we are unpersuaded by the parties’ assertions of error concerning Family Court’s exercise of its broad discretion in imputing $18,000 in income to petitioner (see, Matter of Bosshold v Bryant-Bosshold, 243 AD2d 857 ).

1998Bank v Starzec, 30 AD2d 603, 604 ).

1998As correctly argued by plaintiff, the claimed deficiencies in the appraisal report did not preclude its consideration by Supreme Court; rather, the assertions of error merely bore on the question of the weight to be given it (see, Ensign v City of Hudson, 93 AD2d 963 ; Broward Natl.

1997The defendant’s assertions of the defense of agency and the affirmative defense of entrapment, and evidence that he suffers from an attention deficient disorder which causes him academic and vocational difficulties, did not justify dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice (see, People v Hudson, 217 AD2d 53 ; People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34 ; People v Thomas, 108 AD2d 884 ; People v Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501 ; People v Lit-man, 99 AD2d 573 ).

1997The defendant’s assertions of the defense of agency and the affirmative defense of entrapment, and evidence that he suffers from an attention deficient disorder which causes him academic and vocational difficulties, did not justify dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice (see, People v Hudson, 217 AD2d 53 ; People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34 ; People v Thomas, 108 AD2d 884 ; People v Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501 ; People v Lit-man, 99 AD2d 573 ).

1997The defendant’s assertions of the defense of agency and the affirmative defense of entrapment, and evidence that he suffers from an attention deficient disorder which causes him academic and vocational difficulties, did not justify dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice (see, People v Hudson, 217 AD2d 53 ; People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34 ; People v Thomas, 108 AD2d 884 ; People v Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501 ; People v Lit-man, 99 AD2d 573 ).

1997The defendant’s assertions of the defense of agency and the affirmative defense of entrapment, and evidence that he suffers from an attention deficient disorder which causes him academic and vocational difficulties, did not justify dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice (see, People v Hudson, 217 AD2d 53 ; People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34 ; People v Thomas, 108 AD2d 884 ; People v Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501 ; People v Lit-man, 99 AD2d 573 ).

1997The defendant’s assertions of the defense of agency and the affirmative defense of entrapment, and evidence that he suffers from an attention deficient disorder which causes him academic and vocational difficulties, did not justify dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice (see, People v Hudson, 217 AD2d 53 ; People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34 ; People v Thomas, 108 AD2d 884 ; People v Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501 ; People v Lit-man, 99 AD2d 573 ).

1996Turning to the remaining assertions of error, we conclude that petitioner did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that the Department’s audit methodology was unreliable (see, 18 NYCRR 519.18 [d]; Matter of Mercy Hosp. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 79 NY2d 197, 204 ), and it is not the Department’s burden to disprove petitioner’s speculation that there may have been duplicate recovery for ordered services (see, 18 NYCRR 518.3 [c]; Matter of Enaw v Dowling, 220 AD2d 942, 944 ; Matter of Newman v Dowling, 210 AD2d 552, 554 ).

1996Turning to the remaining assertions of error, we conclude that petitioner did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that the Department’s audit methodology was unreliable (see, 18 NYCRR 519.18 [d]; Matter of Mercy Hosp. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 79 NY2d 197, 204 ), and it is not the Department’s burden to disprove petitioner’s speculation that there may have been duplicate recovery for ordered services (see, 18 NYCRR 518.3 [c]; Matter of Enaw v Dowling, 220 AD2d 942, 944 ; Matter of Newman v Dowling, 210 AD2d 552, 554 ).