People v. Rich
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Rich
2026 NY Slip Op 04713
July 24, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v
NICHOLAS M. RICH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on July 24, 2026
555 KA 25-00025
Present: Lindley, J.P., Bannister, Ogden, Delconte, And Hannah, JJ.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BRAEDAN GILLMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL J. KEANE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (TABITHA R. SALONEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paul Wojtaszek, J.), rendered February 23, 2024. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide.
[*1]It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide (Penal Law § 125.14 [1]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable and that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We affirm.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the waiver of the right to appeal is not unconscionable per se (see People v Maher, 247 AD3d 1502, 1502-1503 [4th Dept 2026], lv denied — NY3d — [2026]; People v Brinkman, 240 AD3d 1431, 1431-1432 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1027 [2025]) and it is not improper for the People to demand a waiver of the right to appeal as a condition of a plea bargain (see Maher, 247 AD3d at 1503; Brinkman, 240 AD3d at 1431-1432; see e.g. People v Thomas, 237 AD3d 1557, 1557-1558 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1059 [2025]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and therefore does not preclude our review of his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Harrison, 242 AD3d 1540, 1541 [4th Dept 2025]; People v Swiderski, 217 AD3d 1416, 1417 [4th Dept 2023]), we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered: July 24, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Rich (People v. Rich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.