People v. Zaman

Opinion

People v Zaman

2026 NY Slip Op 05199

September 2, 2026

Appellate Division, Second 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

Ashik Zaman, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 2, 2026

2025-02217, (Ind. No. 669/21)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Helen Voutsinas

Laurence L. Love

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Rosenberg Law Firm, Brooklyn, NY (Samantha Imber of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Erin P. VanBuskirk of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ushir Pandit-Durant, J.), rendered July 12, 2024, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Reviewing the record as a whole and the circumstances surrounding the entry of the plea (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1055), the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Hollman, 197 AD3d 484, 484-485; People v Duart, 144 AD3d 1173, 1175). The defendant's assertions in support of his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty were unsubstantiated and contradicted by the record of the plea proceeding (see People v Hannans, 249 AD3d 909, 910; People v Johnson, 170 AD3d 1195, 1196).

The record does not establish that the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. In the oral colloquy, the Supreme Court mischaracterized the nature of the right to appeal by stating that the defendant's conviction would be final (see People v Jenkins, 233 AD3d 1027, 1028). Although the defendant executed a written appeal waiver form, the court failed to confirm that the defendant understood the contents of the written waiver (see People v Gonzalez, 244 AD3d 1229, 1229). Thus, the defendant's purported appeal waiver does not preclude appellate review of his excessive sentence claim (see id.).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

DILLON, J.P., VOUTSINAS, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court