People v Ramos
2013 NY Slip Op 03045 [105 AD3d 684]
April 30, 2013
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 29, 2013


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

[*1]Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. Zeno ofcounsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Frank Glaser of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr.,J.), rendered September 11, 2009, resentencing defendant pursuant to Penal Law §70.85 to an aggregate term of 20 years, without any period of postrelease supervision,unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or aboutJuly 24, 2009, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate judgment,unanimously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

A Justice of this Court denied defendant's pro se CPL 460.15 application for leave toappeal from the denial of defendant's CPL 440.10 motion. However, defendant, throughcounsel, made a second leave application, which asserted upon information and beliefthat no other leave application had been made. In reliance on this inaccurate statement,another Justice of this Court issued a certificate granting leave to appeal.

"Not more than one application may be made for such certificate" (CPL 460.15 [2]).Prohibitions on multiple leave applications are jurisdictional (see People vNelson, 55 NY2d 743, 743-744 [1981]), and we have no authority to disregard them,in the interest of justice or otherwise. The fact that the first application was made pro sewhile the second was made by counsel is of no consequence (see People v Liner,70 NY2d 945 [1988]). Accordingly, we vacate the certificate and dismiss the appeal.

Although defendant's direct appeal from his judgment of resentence is properlybefore us, [*2]that appeal does not bring up for reviewany of defendant's present challenges to his original conviction (see People v Jordan, 16 NY3d845 [2011]), and defendant has not demonstrated any basis for reversal ormodification of the judgment of resentence. Concur—Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz,Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.


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.