People v. Rypps

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rypps

231 A.D.2d 477, 647 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9511

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D.2d 477 (People v. Rypps) 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. Rypps, 231 A.D.2d 477, 647 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered June 29, 1994, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and sentencing him to 5 years probation and restitution of $16,816, unanimously affirmed.

The plea minutes conclusively establish that defendant, a dentist, had a precise understanding of the nature and consequences of his plea, and that he specifically agreed to the restitution that was ordered and thus avoided a possible jail sentence. Accordingly, there was no basis for litigating the amount of restitution to which defendant had agreed (People v Suros, 209 AD2d 203, lv denied 85 NY2d 943, cert denied 516 US 862). Nor did defendant advance any sufficiently credible factual representations at sentencing to warrant a hearing into the voluntariness of the plea (cf., People v Brown, 205 AD2d 436), and there is no support in the record for the claim that defendant was denied meaningful representation in this regard (People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640, 642-643; People v Contreras, 219 AD2d 495, lv denied 87 NY2d 845). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered June 29, 1994, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and sentencing him to 5 years probation and restitution of $16,816, unanimously affirmed.

The plea minutes conclusively establish that defendant, a dentist, had a precise understanding of the nature and consequences of his plea, and that he specifically agreed to the restitution that was ordered and thus avoided a possible jail sentence. Accordingly, there was no basis for litigating the amount of restitution to which defendant had agreed (People v Suros, 209 AD2d 203, lv denied 85 NY2d 943, cert denied 516 US 862). Nor did defendant advance any sufficiently credible factual representations at sentencing to warrant a hearing into the voluntariness of the plea (cf., People v Brown, 205 AD2d 436), and there is no support in the record for the claim that defendant was denied meaningful representation in this regard (People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640, 642-643; People v Contreras, 219 AD2d 495, lv denied 87 NY2d 845). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 477, 647 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rypps-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack