People v Curry
2008 NY Slip Op 08506 [56 AD3d 489]
November 5, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
JamesCurry, Appellant.

[*1]James Curry, Attica, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Ronnie Jane Lamm of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, SuffolkCounty (Mullen, J.), dated March 28, 2006, which, without a hearing, denied his motion pursuantto CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), renderedOctober 26, 2004, convicting him of attempted reckless endangerment in the first degree, uponhis plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

In exchange for the defendant's plea of guilty, the People agreed, inter alia, not to make anegative recommendation with respect to the defendant's eventual parole hearing. Nevertheless,when asked for their position as to parole, the People submitted a letter in opposition, authoredby the same assistant district attorney who negotiated the plea agreement. The Peopleacknowledge, as they must, that submission of the letter was a direct violation of thecommitment they made as part of the plea agreement. Nevertheless, the defendant is not entitledto dismissal of the indictment, the only relief he seeks for the People's breach of the pleaagreement (cf. People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 241 [1974], cert denied 419 US1122 [1975]).[*2]

The defendant's claim regarding the voluntariness of hisplea of guilty is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Douglas, 46 AD3d 698 [2007]; People v Elcine, 43 AD3d 1176,1177 [2007]; People v Vega, 256 AD2d 367, 368 [1998]), and his claim that his firstattorney, who did not represent him at the time that he entered his plea of guilty, did not providehim with effective representation, was forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v Silent, 37 AD3d 625[2007]; People v Scalercio, 10AD3d 697 [2004]).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Angiolillo, McCarthy andChambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.