rare exception in New York

2026Contrary to defendant's further contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Santos , 230 AD3d 1586 , 1586 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 932 [2025]).

2026This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).

2021Contrary to defendant's contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) "inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Lewandowski , 82 AD3d 1602, 1602 [4th Dept 2011]).

2019Contrary to defendant's contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) "inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Lewandowski , 82 AD3d 1602, 1602 [4th Dept 2011]).

2013In any event, the record reveals that the defendant was properly advised of the direct consequences of the plea, and that he understood its consequences (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 402-403 [1995]).

2013In any event, the record reveals that the defendant was properly advised of the direct consequences of the plea, and that he understood its consequences (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 402-403 [1995]).

2025Furthermore, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see Hill , 128 AD3d at 1480).

2025Furthermore, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see Hill , 128 AD3d at 1480).

2016Moreover, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea colloquy was factually insufficient inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v Lawrence, 118 AD3d 1501 , 1501 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]; People v Kozody, 74 AD3d 1907, 1908 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 806 [2010]), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule (see Lawrence, 118 AD3d at 1501-1502; see generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]).

2016Moreover, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea colloquy was factually insufficient inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground (see People v Lawrence, 118 AD3d 1501 , 1501 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1220 [2015]; People v Kozody, 74 AD3d 1907, 1908 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 806 [2010]), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule (see Lawrence, 118 AD3d at 1501-1502; see generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]).

2013“Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule” (Trinidad, 23 AD3d at 1061; see generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).

2013“Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule” (Trinidad, 23 AD3d at 1061; see generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).

2025Defendant equivocated when the court first asked whether, with the requisite intent, he caused serious physical injury to the victim by repeatedly stabbing her, "thereby triggering the trial court's duty to conduct a further inquiry to ensure that defendant's plea was knowingly and voluntarily made" ( People v McNair , 13 NY3d 821, 822-823 [2009]; see People v Edwards , 55 AD3d 1337, 1338 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]; People v Castanea , 265 AD2d 906, 907 [4th Dept 1999]; see also People v Bovio , 206 AD3d 1568 , 1570 [4th Dept 2022]) .

2025Defendant equivocated when the court first asked whether, with the requisite intent, he caused serious physical injury to the victim by repeatedly stabbing her, "thereby triggering the trial court's duty to conduct a further inquiry to ensure that defendant's plea was knowingly and voluntarily made" ( People v McNair , 13 NY3d 821, 822-823 [2009]; see People v Edwards , 55 AD3d 1337, 1338 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]; People v Castanea , 265 AD2d 906, 907 [4th Dept 1999]; see also People v Bovio , 206 AD3d 1568 , 1570 [4th Dept 2022]) .

2020Where a defendant's recitation of the facts "negates an essential element of the crime pleaded to, the court may not accept the plea without making further inquiry to ensure that [the] defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea is intelligently entered" ( Lopez , 71 NY2d at 666 ; see People v Homer , 233 AD2d 934, 935 [4th Dept 1996]; People v Freville , 226 AD2d 1100, 1100-1101 [4th Dept 1996]; see generally People v Mox , 20 NY3d 936, 938-939 [2012]).

2018Defendant made a statement during the plea allocution that raised a potentially viable affirmative defense pursuant to Penal Law § 130.10 (1), thereby "giving rise to a duty on the part of the court, before accepting the guilty plea, to ensure that defendant was aware of that defense and was knowingly and voluntarily waiving it" ( DeJesus , 144 AD3d at 1565 ; see People v Mox , 20 NY3d 936, 938-939 [2012]; People v Dukes , 120 AD3d 1597, 1598 [4th Dept 2014]).

2016However, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary because he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Laney, 117 AD3d 1481, 1482 [2014]), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; Sanford, 138 AD3d at 1436 ).

2016However, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary because he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Laney, 117 AD3d 1481, 1482 [2014]), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; Sanford, 138 AD3d at 1436 ).

2020Further, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Toxey , 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1995]), and we decline to exercise our power to address defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

2005Nevertheless, by failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v DeJesus, 248 AD2d 1023 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 878 [1998]), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], rearg denied 86 NY2d 839 [1995]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).

2021This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see Russell , 133 AD3d at 1199 ; Williams , 124 AD3d at 1285-1286 ).

2019Contrary to defendant's contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement because nothing defendant said during the plea colloquy or the sentencing hearing "clearly cast[] significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise call[ed] into question the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see Williams , 124 AD3d at 1285-1286 ).

2023In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. "[A] defendant who pleads guilty need not 'acknowledge[ ] committing every element of the pleaded-to offense . . . or provide[ ] a factual exposition for each element of the pleaded-to offense' . . . [and a] plea will not be vacated where, as here, the defendant does not negate an element of the pleaded-to offense during the colloquy or otherwise cast doubt on his or her guilt or the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Madden , 148 AD3d 1576 , 1578 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1034 [2017], quoting People v Seeber , 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005

2022In any event, that contention is without merit. "[A] defendant who pleads guilty need not 'acknowledge[] committing every element of the pleaded-to offense . . . or provide[] a factual exposition for each element of the pleaded-to offense' . . . [and a] plea will not be vacated where, as here, the defendant does not negate an element of the pleaded-to offense during the colloquy or otherwise cast doubt on his or her guilt or the voluntariness of the plea" ( People v Madden , 148 AD3d 1576 , 1578 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1034 [2017], quoting People v Seeber , 4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]).

2020In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's initial hesitation to enter the plea called into question the voluntariness of the plea, we conclude on the record before us that County Court fulfilled its "duty to inquire further to ensure that defendant's guilty plea [was] knowing and voluntary" ( Lopez , 71 NY2d at 666 ; see Pitcher , 126 AD3d at 1472 ; People v Mitchell , 48 AD3d 1081, 1082 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 867 [2008]).

2015In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s initial hesitation to implicate his codefendant in the crime called into question the voluntariness of defendant’s plea, we conclude on the record before us that County Court fulfilled its “duty to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea [was] knowing and voluntary” (Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ; see People v Mitchell, 48 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 867 [2008]).

2019To the extent that defendant concedes that he did not make such a statement and instead contends that County Court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into a possible defense to the crime, that contention is "actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge" ( People v Arney , 120 AD3d 949, 949-950 [4th Dept 2014]; see People v Zimmerman , 100 AD3d 1360 , 1361 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]).

2014We conclude that the court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, inasmuch as there is no “evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea” (People v Watkins, 107 AD3d 1416, 1416 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 959 [2013]; see People v Zimmerman, 100 AD3d 1360 , 1361 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]; People v Robertson, 255 AD2d 968 , 968 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1053 [1999]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement because nothing in the plea allocution calls into question the voluntariness of the plea or casts “significant doubt” upon his guilt (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Cubi, 104 AD3d 1225, 1226 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1003 [2013]).

2013Contrary to defendant’s further contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement because nothing in the plea allocution calls into question the voluntariness of the plea or casts “significant doubt” upon his guilt (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Cubi, 104 AD3d 1225, 1226 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1003 [2013]).

2021This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; Carpenter , 13 AD3d at 1194 ).

2018Although that contention survives the valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Watkins , 77 AD3d 1403, 1403 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 956 [2010]), that contention is not preserved for our review ( see People v Williams , 124 AD3d 1285, 1285 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1078 [2015]; Carpenter , 13 AD3d at 1194 ), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).

2020Contrary to defendant's contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement because nothing in the plea colloquy calls into question the voluntariness of the plea or casts "significant doubt" on her guilt ( People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; see People v Pitcher , 126 AD3d 1471, 1472 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1169 [2015]).

2016This case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) “because nothing in the plea allocution calls into question the voluntariness of the plea or casts ‘significant doubt’ upon his guilt” (People v Pitcher, 126 AD3d 1471, 1472 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1169 [2015], quoting Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666 ).

2019To the extent that defendant concedes that he did not make such a statement and instead contends that County Court erred in failing sua sponte to inquire into a possible defense to the crime, that contention is "actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and it is well settled that defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that challenge" ( People v Arney , 120 AD3d 949, 949-950 [4th Dept 2014]; see People v Zimmerman , 100 AD3d 1360 , 1361 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1015 [2013]).

2016The statements made by defendant during his presentence interview and at sentencing regarding his possible intoxication during the offense did not require the court to conduct an inquiry regarding the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Arney, 120 AD3d 949, 950 [2014]; Connolly, 70 AD3d at 1511 ; People v Kelly, 50 AD3d 921, 921 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 960 [2008]).

2016Further, although defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), we conclude that this case falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see id. at 666 ; People v Dukes, 120 AD3d 1597, 1597-1598 [2014]).

2016Further, although defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), we conclude that this case falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement (see id. at 666 ; People v Dukes, 120 AD3d 1597, 1597-1598 [2014]).

2017To the extent that defendant’s contention is based upon matters outside the record, he may raise his contention in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Medina, 132 AD3d 1363, 1364 [2015]).

2017To the extent that defendant’s contention is based upon matters outside the record, he may raise his contention in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Medina, 132 AD3d 1363, 1364 [2015]).

2025To the extent that defendant negated an essential element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty by initially denying that the note he handed to the bank teller included a threat of force, we note that County Court immediately conducted the requisite further inquiry to ensure that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary ( see id. at 666-668 ; People v Briggs , 115 AD3d 1245 , 1246 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1018 [2014]; People v Pratt , 176 AD2d 1231 , 1231 [4th Dept 1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 830 [1991]), and we conclude that "defendant's responses to the court'

2022To the extent that defendant negated an essential element of a crime to which he pleaded guilty by initially denying any intent to damage property, we note that County Court immediately conducted the requisite further inquiry to ensure that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary ( see id. at 666-668 ; People v Stafford , 195 AD3d 1466, 1466-1467 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1029 [2021]), and we conclude that "defendant's responses to the court's subsequent questions removed [any] doubt about [his] guilt" ( People v Vogt , 150 AD3d 1704, 1705 [4th Dept 2017] [inte

2023Further, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of his challenge to the severity of his sentence ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]).

2023Further, defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of his challenge to the severity of his sentence ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]).

2017Moreover, “[t]his case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” (Alexander, 132 AD3d at 1413 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2017Moreover, “[t]his case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” (Alexander, 132 AD3d at 1413 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2013With respect to defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, such a claim survives a plea of guilty only if “the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or [if] defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance” (People v Robinson, 39 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 869 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Lugg, 108 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2013]; People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334, 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009]).

2013With respect to defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, such a claim survives a plea of guilty only if “the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or [if] defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance” (People v Robinson, 39 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 869 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Lugg, 108 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2013]; People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334, 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009]).

2012Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 ), “inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lewandowski, 82 AD3d 1602, 1602 ; see Jones, 42 AD3d 968 ).

2012Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement set forth in People v Lopez ( 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), “inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea” (People v Lewandowski, 82 AD3d 1602, 1602 [2011]; see Jones, 42 AD3d 968 ).

2016Furthermore, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Brinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]).

2016Furthermore, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation requirement inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy casts significant doubt on defendant’s guilt or the voluntariness of the plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Brinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 965 [2015]).