People v. Yap
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 05831 (People v. Yap) 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.
Opinion
People v Yap (2025 NY Slip Op 05831)
| People v Yap |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 05831 |
| Decided on October 22, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 22, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
HELEN VOUTSINAS
LAURENCE L. LOVE
ELENA GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ.
2023-10437
(Ind. No. 6567/17)
v
James Yap, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Robert C. Langdon of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel; Hannah Thomas on the memorandum), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jill Konviser, J.), imposed June 27, 2018, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). The Supreme Court mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal by incorrectly describing the scope of appellate review (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545), and the written waiver form did not overcome the deficiencies in the court's explanation of the right of appeal, as it stated that the defendant's sentence and conviction would be final (see id.).
However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
IANNACCI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VOUTSINAS, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 05831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yap-nyappdiv-2025.