People v. Ortloff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ortloff

28 A.D.2d 914, 282 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3560

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 10, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 914 (People v. Ortloff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ortloff, 28 A.D.2d 914, 282 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan and Munder, J J., concur: Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to remit the application for a hearing, with the following memorandum: In his coram nobis petition, defendant stated that his guilty plea had been induced by an unkept promise of leniency, made to his attorney by the court and communicated to him by his attorney. His assertion was corroborated by a fellow prisoner who allegedly was present and heard the conversation between defendant and his attorney. Defendant further stated that his attorney, refused to acknowledge that such promise was made, and instead described his conversation with defendant as an “ educated guess based on experience No affidavit by said attorney was submitted on this application, which was denied without a hearing. In my opinion, a hearing is required. First, one is needed so that defendant's attorney can clarify whether his alleged “educated guess” was based on his general experience or on his interpretation of statements made by the court. Second, if we assume that defendant's attorney meant to deny that a promise had been made by the court, he has been contradicted in that respect by defendant’s fellow prisoner, and that conflict requires a hearing for its resolution (People v. Weldon, 17 N Y 2d 814).

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

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan and Munder, J J., concur: Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to remit the application for a hearing, with the following memorandum: In his coram nobis petition, defendant stated that his guilty plea had been induced by an unkept promise of leniency, made to his attorney by the court and communicated to him by his attorney. His assertion was corroborated by a fellow prisoner who allegedly was present and heard the conversation between defendant and his attorney. Defendant further stated that his attorney, refused to acknowledge that such promise was made, and instead described his conversation with defendant as an “ educated guess based on experience No affidavit by said attorney was submitted on this application, which was denied without a hearing. In my opinion, a hearing is required. First, one is needed so that defendant's attorney can clarify whether his alleged “educated guess” was based on his general experience or on his interpretation of statements made by the court. Second, if we assume that defendant's attorney meant to deny that a promise had been made by the court, he has been contradicted in that respect by defendant’s fellow prisoner, and that conflict requires a hearing for its resolution (People v. Weldon, 17 N Y 2d 814).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 914, 282 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ortloff-nyappdiv-1967.