conducted a sufficient inquiry in New York

2022An evidentiary hearing was not required and, under the circumstances, we find that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry before determining that there was a legitimate basis for the charges ( see People v Albergotti , 17 NY3d 748, 750 [2011]; People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]).

2021As an alternative holding, we find that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry into defendant's undisputed failure to comply with the plea agreement, made adequate findings, and providently imposed sentence ( see People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 713-714 [1993]).

2022An evidentiary hearing was not required and, under the circumstances, we find that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry before determining that there was a legitimate basis for the charges ( see People v Albergotti , 17 NY3d 748, 750 [2011]; People v Outley , 80 NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]).

2021In any event, we conclude that the court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances here and that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry inasmuch as "[b]oth defendant and his counsel were given ample opportunity to refute the court's assertions that defendant had violated the plea terms" ( People v Albergotti , 17 NY3d 748 , 750 [2011]; see People v Coker , 133 AD3d 1218, 1219 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 995 [2016]; cf. People v Stanley , 128 AD3d 1472, 1475 [4th Dept 2015]).

2017The record establishes that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry to ensure that the plea was voluntary, and defendant responded that he had not taken any narcotic pain medication for nearly two weeks prior to the plea and that he understood the proceedings (see People v Rosado, 70 AD3d 1315, 1316 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 892 [2010]; People v Zulian, 68 AD3d 1731 , 1732 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 894 [2010]).

2017The record establishes that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry to ensure that the plea was voluntary, and defendant responded that he had not taken any narcotic pain medication for nearly two weeks prior to the plea and that he understood the proceedings (see People v Rosado, 70 AD3d 1315, 1316 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 892 [2010]; People v Zulian, 68 AD3d 1731 , 1732 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 894 [2010]).

2017Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenges to the court’s suppression ruling (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and to the severity of his sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256 ; Davis, 129 AD3d at 1615 ; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2017Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenges to the court’s suppression ruling (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and to the severity of his sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256 ; Davis, 129 AD3d at 1615 ; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2017Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenges to the court’s suppression ruling (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and to the severity of his sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256 ; Davis, 129 AD3d at 1615 ; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2017Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenges to the court’s suppression ruling (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and to the severity of his sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256 ; Davis, 129 AD3d at 1615 ; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2017Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenges to the court’s suppression ruling (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and to the severity of his sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256 ; Davis, 129 AD3d at 1615 ; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2017Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenges to the court’s suppression ruling (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and to the severity of his sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256 ; Davis, 129 AD3d at 1615 ; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2019The court conducted a sufficient inquiry into the matter, which provided no basis for a finding that the juror was grossly unqualified ( see People v Mejias , 21 NY3d 73, 79-80 [2013]; People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]).

2007The court conducted a sufficient inquiry of a juror who reported that defendant had been staring at her, but nevertheless assured the court that she could remain fair and impartial (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987]), and it properly exercised its discretion in declining to pursue the matter any further.

2007In any event, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry to ensure that there was no justification defense and that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ; Davis, 37 AD3d 1179 [2007]).

2007Even assuming, arguendo, that this is one of those rare cases where preservation of defendant’s contention is not required because “defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), we conclude that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowing and voluntary (see People v Greer, 277 AD2d 1051 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 829 [2001]).

2012We conclude that, upon remittal, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]) to satisfy itself that defendant’s postplea arrest in Camillus, New York had a legitimate basis and thus constituted a violation of the conditions of the drug treatment program and the plea agreement (see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 97 [2010]; People v Marshall, 231 AD2d 893, 894-895 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 866 [1996]).

2012We conclude that, upon remittal, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]) to satisfy itself that defendant’s postplea arrest in Camillus, New York had a legitimate basis and thus constituted a violation of the conditions of the drug treatment program and the plea agreement (see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 97 [2010]; People v Marshall, 231 AD2d 893, 894-895 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 866 [1996]).

2012We conclude that, upon remittal, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]) to satisfy itself that defendant’s postplea arrest in Camillus, New York had a legitimate basis and thus constituted a violation of the conditions of the drug treatment program and the plea agreement (see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 97 [2010]; People v Marshall, 231 AD2d 893, 894-895 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 866 [1996]).

2012We conclude that, upon remittal, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry pursuant to People v Outley ( 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]) to satisfy itself that defendant’s postplea arrest in Camillus, New York had a legitimate basis and thus constituted a violation of the conditions of the drug treatment program and the plea agreement (see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 97 [2010]; People v Marshall, 231 AD2d 893, 894-895 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 866 [1996]).

2014Defendant and his counsel were given ample opportunity to address the validity of the new charge, and the court conducted a sufficient inquiry and reasonably concluded that defendant’s arrest constituted a violation of the terms of the plea agreements (see People v Albergotti, 17 NY3d 748, 749 [2011]; People v McDevitt, 97 AD3d 1039, 1041 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]).

2014Defendant and his counsel were given ample opportunity to address the validity of the new charge, and the court conducted a sufficient inquiry and reasonably concluded that defendant’s arrest constituted a violation of the terms of the plea agreements (see People v Albergotti, 17 NY3d 748, 749 [2011]; People v McDevitt, 97 AD3d 1039, 1041 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]).

2013There were no disputed factual issues that required a hearing as a matter of due process (see People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714 [2004]; compare Torres v Berbary, 340 F3d 63 [2d Cir 2003]).

2013There were no disputed factual issues that required a hearing as a matter of due process (see People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714 [2004]; compare Torres v Berbary, 340 F3d 63 [2d Cir 2003]).

2007Finally, the challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

2001Defendant’s unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal also encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see, People v Hidalgo, supra, at 734).

2007We conclude that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry before denying defendant’s request to withdraw the plea (see People v Biller, 270 AD2d 883 [2000]; see generally People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; People v Farley, 34 AD3d 1229 [2006]).

2007We conclude that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry and afforded defendant a “reasonable opportunity to present his contentions” (People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; see People v Stephens, 6 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 663 , 682 [2004]).

2015The court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant’s request and no further inquiry was required, as the defendant’s assertions did not suggest the serious possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other impediment to the defendant’s representation by assigned counsel (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d at 99-100 ; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 [1982]; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199 , 207 [1978]; People v Allison, 69 AD3d at 740 ; cf. People v Beard, 100 AD3d 1508, 1510 [2012]).

2015The court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant's request and no further inquiry was required, as the defendant's assertions did not suggest the serious possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other impediment to the defendant's representation by assigned counsel ( see People v Porto, 16 NY3d at 99-100 ; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 ; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 ; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199 , 207; People v Allison, 69 AD3d at 740 ; cf. People v Beard, 100 AD3d 1508, 1510 ).

2018Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry into his presentence request to remove trial counsel ( see People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [2010]).

2015The court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant’s request and no further inquiry was required, as the defendant’s assertions did not suggest the serious possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other impediment to the defendant’s representation by assigned counsel (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d at 99-100 ; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 [1982]; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199 , 207 [1978]; People v Allison, 69 AD3d at 740 ; cf. People v Beard, 100 AD3d 1508, 1510 [2012]).

2015The court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant’s request and no further inquiry was required, as the defendant’s assertions did not suggest the serious possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other impediment to the defendant’s representation by assigned counsel (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d at 99-100 ; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 [1982]; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199 , 207 [1978]; People v Allison, 69 AD3d at 740 ; cf. People v Beard, 100 AD3d 1508, 1510 [2012]).

2015The court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant's request and no further inquiry was required, as the defendant's assertions did not suggest the serious possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other impediment to the defendant's representation by assigned counsel ( see People v Porto, 16 NY3d at 99-100 ; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 ; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 ; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199 , 207; People v Allison, 69 AD3d at 740 ; cf. People v Beard, 100 AD3d 1508, 1510 ).

2015The court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant’s request and no further inquiry was required, as the defendant’s assertions did not suggest the serious possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other impediment to the defendant’s representation by assigned counsel (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d at 99-100 ; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 [1982]; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199 , 207 [1978]; People v Allison, 69 AD3d at 740 ; cf. People v Beard, 100 AD3d 1508, 1510 [2012]).

2015The court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant's request and no further inquiry was required, as the defendant's assertions did not suggest the serious possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other impediment to the defendant's representation by assigned counsel ( see People v Porto, 16 NY3d at 99-100 ; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 ; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 ; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199 , 207; People v Allison, 69 AD3d at 740 ; cf. People v Beard, 100 AD3d 1508, 1510 ).