People v. Muccigrosso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Muccigrosso

269 A.D.2d 754, 703 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1631

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 16, 2000·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The determination whether to grant a motion to vacate a plea of guilty is within the sound discretion of the court (see, CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Peavy, 225 AD2d 1082, 1083, lv denied 88 NY2d 883), and County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant to vacate his plea of guilty.

Although defendant was granted relief from civil disabilities (see, Correction Law § 702 [1]) at sentencing, the court failed to sign the certificate. Contrary to defendant’s contention, that failure is not a question of law or issue of fact subject to our review (see, CPL 470.15 [1]). Defendant seeks to compel the court to perform a ministerial act necessary to implement the relief that the court granted him. Because the relief sought is mandamus (see, Matter of Doczy v Rotker, 155 AD2d 400, 401), [755]*755defendant’s remedy is to commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J. — Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The determination whether to grant a motion to vacate a plea of guilty is within the sound discretion of the court (see, CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Peavy, 225 AD2d 1082, 1083, lv denied 88 NY2d 883), and County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant to vacate his plea of guilty.

Although defendant was granted relief from civil disabilities (see, Correction Law § 702 [1]) at sentencing, the court failed to sign the certificate. Contrary to defendant’s contention, that failure is not a question of law or issue of fact subject to our review (see, CPL 470.15 [1]). Defendant seeks to compel the court to perform a ministerial act necessary to implement the relief that the court granted him. Because the relief sought is mandamus (see, Matter of Doczy v Rotker, 155 AD2d 400, 401), [755]*755defendant’s remedy is to commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J. — Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

People v. Muccigrosso, 269 A.D.2d 754, 703 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 754 (People v. Muccigrosso) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related