valid appeal waiver in New York

2025Footnotes Footnote 1: Although defendant also challenges the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal, such issue need not be addressed as the challenge to the voluntariness of the plea survives even a valid appeal waiver ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Lewis , 234 AD3d 1209 , 1210 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1009 [2025]).

2025Given those circumstances, the majority's aberrant decision to bypass the preclusive effect of a valid appeal waiver, sua sponte raise the issue of severity, and then reduce defendant's sentence is not only unprecedented, it is unnecessary. * * * In a system that largely resolves criminal charges by plea, it may be preferable for the sake of justice that appeal waivers, now so commonly required as part of plea agreements, not foreclose the Appellate Division from exercising its power to reduce a sentence in the interest of justice on its own initiative ( see Lopez , 6 NY3d at 257-264 [G.B.

2026Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is not subject to preservation requirements, as he could not have moved to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60(3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440 ( see People v Louree , 8 NY3d 541, 546 [2007]), and it survives the valid appeal waiver ( see People v Seaberg , 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]).

2026Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is not subject to preservation requirements, as he could not have moved to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60(3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440 ( see People v Louree , 8 NY3d 541, 546 [2007]), and it survives the valid appeal waiver ( see People v Seaberg , 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]).

2023The narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered, as defendant did not make any statements — either during the plea allocution, at the appearance after she was discharged from her treatment program and placed on house arrest or at the time of sentencing — that negated an element of the charged crime, were inconsistent with her guilt or that otherwise called into question the voluntariness of her plea ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Rodriguez , 217 AD3d 1012, 1014 [3d Dept 2023]; see also People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212, 219-220 [2016]).

2019To the extent that defendant's contention constitutes a challenge to the voluntariness of her plea, which survives even a valid appeal waiver, it is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion, despite ample time to do so prior to sentencing ( see People v Favreau , 174 AD3d 1226 , 1227 [2019]; People v Putman , 169 AD3d 1114 , 1115 [2019]), and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered here ( see People v Pastor , 28 NY3d 1089, 1090-1091 [2016]; People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).

2025As for the fine, because the amount thereof was left [*2]to County Court's discretion and, hence, was not part and parcel of the plea agreement, defendant's claim that the $5,000 fine imposed upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree was, among other things, grossly disproportionate to the underlying conduct ( see Penal Law § 80.00 [1]) survives the valid appeal waiver ( see People v Merritt , 210 AD3d 1209, 1210 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Sequin , 201 AD3d 1252, 1253 [3d Dept 2022]).

2024Inasmuch as defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives even a valid appeal waiver ( see People v Miller , 221 AD3d 1177, 1178 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Guerrero , 194 AD3d 1258, 1260 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 992 [2021]), the validity of the waiver of appeal at issue here need not detain us ( see People v West , 215 AD3d 1067 , 1071 n 3 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Merritt , 210 AD3d 1209, 1209 [3d Dept 2022]; see generally People v McCall , 216 AD3d 1317, 1317 [3d Dept 2023]).

2025Footnote 4: Such claim would also be forfeited by a valid appeal waiver ( see People v Trombley , 91 AD3d 1197, 1200 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 914 [2013]).

2025Footnote 4: Such claim would also be forfeited by a valid appeal waiver ( see People v Trombley , 91 AD3d 1197, 1200 [3d Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 914 [2013]).

2019Time and time again, we have assured trial courts that there is no mandatory litany that must be used to secure a valid appeal waiver; so long as it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the waiver will be upheld (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]).

2019The defendant's valid appeal waiver with respect to the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 1043/16 ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 341 ; People v Ramos , 7 NY3d 737 , [*2]738; People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 257 ), precludes appellate review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution to driving while intoxicated, as a felony, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3) ( see People v Hicks , 134 AD3d 854 ; People v Hyland , 123 AD3d 736, 737 ; People v King , 115 AD3d 986, 987 ).

2023Footnote 2: To clarify, where the record demonstrates that a defendant was informed during the plea colloquy that a fine up to the maximum statutory amount could be imposed as part of his or her sentence, a valid appeal waiver precludes a defendant's challenge to the severity of the fine imposed ( see People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 735-737 [1998]; People v Petell , 128 AD3d 1283, 1284 [3d Dept 2015]).

2023Footnote 2: To clarify, where the record demonstrates that a defendant was informed during the plea colloquy that a fine up to the maximum statutory amount could be imposed as part of his or her sentence, a valid appeal waiver precludes a defendant's challenge to the severity of the fine imposed ( see People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 735-737 [1998]; People v Petell , 128 AD3d 1283, 1284 [3d Dept 2015]).

2024As such, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed is foreclosed by the valid appeal waiver ( see People v Brown , 37 NY3d 940 , 941-942 [2021]; People v Pacherille , 25 NY3d 1021, 1024 [2015]; People v Dobbs , 217 AD3d at 1277 ).

2024In light of the valid appeal waiver, defendant's challenges to the severity of the sentence imposed and County Court's denial of her request for youthful offender status are precluded ( see People v Pacherille , 25 NY3d 1021 , 1023-1024 [2015]; People v Hernandez , 140 AD3d 1521, 1523 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied [*2] 28 NY3d 971 [2016]).

2011In addition, “though a trial court need not engage in any particular litany” or catechism in satisfying itself that a defendant has entered a knowing, intelligent and voluntary appeal waiver, a trial court “must make certain that a defendant’s understanding” of the waiver, along with the other “terms and conditions of a plea agreement is evident on the face of the record” (Lopez, 6 NY3d at 256 ; see also Callahan, 80 NY2d at 283 [a valid appeal waiver “cannot be inferred from a silent record”]).

2010As the People correctly concede, the defendant’s contention that consecutive sentences were improperly imposed is outside the ambit of the defendant’s valid appeal waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280 [1992]; People v Francabandera, 33 NY2d 429 , 434 n 2 [1974]).

2025Based thereon, we are satisfied that the combined oral and written waiver satisfy the requirements of a valid appeal waiver ( see People v Blanchard , 188 AD3d 1414, 1415 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1055 [2021]; People v Gumbs , 182 AD3d 701, 701-702 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]; see also People v Sanchez , 241 AD3d 1675, 1676 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Nov. 24, 2025]; People v Kidd , 210 AD3d 1148, 1149 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1073 [2023]).

2025Based thereon, we are satisfied that the combined oral and written waiver satisfy the requirements of a valid appeal waiver ( see People v Blanchard , 188 AD3d 1414, 1415 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1055 [2021]; People v Gumbs , 182 AD3d 701, 701-702 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]; see also People v Sanchez , 241 AD3d 1675 , 1676 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Nov. 24, 2025]; People v Kidd , 210 AD3d 1148, 1149 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1073 [2023]).

2017Accordingly, the valid appeal waiver precludes defendant’s claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive (see People v Hess, 150 AD3d 1560 , 1560 [2017]; People v Lavalley, 150 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2017]).

2017Accordingly, the valid appeal waiver precludes defendant’s claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive (see People v Hess, 150 AD3d 1560 , 1560 [2017]; People v Lavalley, 150 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2017]).

2015Initially, although defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives even a valid appeal waiver (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Klinger, 129 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2015]), we note that County Court failed to adequately convey “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Mones, 130 AD3d 1244, 1244-1245 [2015]).

2015Initially, although defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives even a valid appeal waiver (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Klinger, 129 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2015]), we note that County Court failed to adequately convey “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Mones, 130 AD3d 1244, 1244-1245 [2015]).

2019The defendant's contention that CPL 710.70(2) nonetheless requires, or at least permits, review of the order denying suppression, notwithstanding the valid appeal waiver, is without merit ( see People v Kemp , 94 NY2d 831 ; People v Charley , 80 AD3d 622 ; People v Brathwaite , 263 AD2d 89, 91 ; see also People v Friend , 173 AD2d 636 ).

2018While it may be the better practice for courts that have issued adverse suppression rulings to advise defendants that the waiver includes the right to appeal the suppression issue, the valid appeal waiver here precludes defendant's challenge to the denial of his suppression motion ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; People v Kemp , 94 NY2d at 833 ; People v Zippo , 136 AD3d 1222, 1222 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1141 [2016]).

2023The narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered, as defendant did not make any statements — either during the plea allocution, at the appearance after she was discharged from her treatment program and placed on house arrest or at the time of sentencing — that negated an element of the charged crime, were inconsistent with her guilt or that otherwise called into question the voluntariness of her plea ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Rodriguez , 217 AD3d 1012, 1014 [3d Dept 2023]; see also People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212, 219-220 [2016]).

2021The defendant's contention that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent due to the purported factual insufficiency of the plea allocution survives a valid appeal waiver ( see People v Griffin , 167 AD3d at 934), but is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence ( see People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212 ; People v Devodier , 102 AD3d at 884 ).

2025Based thereon, we are satisfied that the combined oral and written waiver satisfy the requirements of a valid appeal waiver ( see People v Blanchard , 188 AD3d 1414, 1415 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1055 [2021]; People v Gumbs , 182 AD3d 701, 701-702 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]; see also People v Sanchez , 241 AD3d 1675, 1676 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Nov. 24, 2025]; People v Kidd , 210 AD3d 1148, 1149 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1073 [2023]).

2025Based thereon, we are satisfied that the combined oral and written waiver satisfy the requirements of a valid appeal waiver ( see People v Blanchard , 188 AD3d 1414, 1415 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1055 [2021]; People v Gumbs , 182 AD3d 701, 701-702 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1066 [2020]; see also People v Sanchez , 241 AD3d 1675 , 1676 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Nov. 24, 2025]; People v Kidd , 210 AD3d 1148, 1149 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1073 [2023]).

2022Defendant's contention that the SCI is jurisdictionally defective "is not precluded by either his guilty plea or his waiver of the right to appeal[] and, further, is not subject to the preservation requirement" ( People v Coss , 178 AD3d 25 , 27 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Mathis , 185 AD3d 1094, 1096 [3d Dept 2020]). [FN1] An SCI "is jurisdictionally [*2]defective only if it does not effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a particular crime — for instance, if it fails to allege that the defendant committed acts constituting ev

2022Defendant's contention that the SCI is jurisdictionally defective "is not precluded by either his guilty plea or his waiver of the right to appeal[] and, further, is not subject to the preservation requirement" ( People v Coss , 178 AD3d 25 , 27 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Mathis , 185 AD3d 1094, 1096 [3d Dept 2020]). [FN1] An SCI "is jurisdictionally [*2]defective only if it does not effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a particular crime — for instance, if it fails to allege that the defendant committed acts constituting ev

2023This valid appeal waiver precludes defendant's argument that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial ( see People v Kidd , 210 AD3d 1148, 1149-1150 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1073 [2023]; People v Dennis , 206 AD3d 1369 , 1371 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Votaw , 190 AD3d 1162, 1164 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 36 NY3d 1101 [2021]).

2023This valid appeal waiver precludes defendant's argument that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial ( see People v Kidd , 210 AD3d 1148, 1149-1150 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1073 [2023]; People v Dennis , 206 AD3d 1369 , 1371 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Votaw , 190 AD3d 1162, 1164 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 36 NY3d 1101 [2021]).

2020Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea survives his appeal waiver ( see People v Bond , 146 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1076 [2017]; People v Giammichele , 144 AD3d 1320, 1320 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1184 [2017]), but is unpreserved for our review absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion ( see People v Pastor , 28 NY3d 1089, 1090 [2016]; People v Small , 166 AD3d 1237 , 1238 [2018]; People v Caraballo , 208 AD2d 413, 413 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1010 [1994]). [FN1] Further, defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy or

2019To the extent that defendant's contention constitutes a challenge to the voluntariness of her plea, which survives even a valid appeal waiver, it is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that defendant made an appropriate postallocution motion, despite ample time to do so prior to sentencing ( see People v Favreau , 174 AD3d 1226 , 1227 [2019]; People v Putman , 169 AD3d 1114 , 1115 [2019]), and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement was not triggered here ( see People v Pastor , 28 NY3d 1089, 1090-1091 [2016]; People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).

2019Time and time again, we have assured trial courts that there is no mandatory litany that must be used to secure a valid appeal waiver; so long as it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the waiver will be upheld (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 [1989]).

2014Finally, the valid appeal waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255 ; cf. People v Adams, 94 AD3d 1428, 1429 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

2017As such, the valid appeal waiver precludes defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v White, 145 AD3d 1324, 1325 [2016]).

2017As such, the valid appeal waiver precludes defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see People v White , 145 AD3d 1324, 1325 [2016]).

2026"Given the valid appeal waiver, defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is precluded except insofar as the alleged ineffectiveness could be construed to have impacted upon the voluntariness of his plea" ( People v Blanchard , 188 AD3d 1414, 1415-1416 [3d Dept 2020] [citations omitted], lv denied 36 NY3d 1055 [2021]).

2026"Given the valid appeal waiver, defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is precluded except insofar as the alleged ineffectiveness could be construed to have impacted upon the voluntariness of his plea" ( People v Blanchard , 188 AD3d 1414, 1415-1416 [3d Dept 2020] [citations omitted], lv denied 36 NY3d 1055 [2021]).

2026Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is not subject to preservation requirements, as he could not have moved to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60(3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440 ( see People v Louree , 8 NY3d 541, 546 [2007]), and it survives the valid appeal waiver ( see People v Seaberg , 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]).

2026Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is not subject to preservation requirements, as he could not have moved to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60(3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440 ( see People v Louree , 8 NY3d 541, 546 [2007]), and it survives the valid appeal waiver ( see People v Seaberg , 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]).