| People v Goberman |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05690 [164 AD3d 602] |
| August 8, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Natalya Goberman, Appellant. |
Peter C. Lomtevas, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (DanielLewis, J.), rendered April 1, 2016, convicting her of criminal possession of a forged instrumentin the second degree and falsifying business records in the first degree, upon her plea of guilty,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of thedefendant's motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3) to withdraw her plea of guilty.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Generally, a plea of guilty may not be withdrawn absent some evidence of innocence, fraud,or mistake in its inducement (see e.g.People v Smith, 148 AD3d 939, 940 [2017]). Only in rare instances will a defendant beentitled to an evidentiary hearing upon a motion to withdraw a guilty plea; often a limitedinterrogation by the court will suffice (see People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974];People v Oden, 150 AD3d1269, 1270 [2017]).
Here, in addition to written submissions, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on thedefendant's motion to withdraw her plea of guilty and conducted a limited interrogation of thedefendant in open court. Contrary to the defendant's contention, she was afforded a reasonableopportunity to present her contentions and the court was able to make an informed determinationwithout the need for an evidentiary hearing (see People v Tinsley, 35 NY2d at 927).Based on the evidence before the court, the defendant's claim that her plea was coerced bycounsel was conclusory and unsubstantiated (see People v Oden, 150 AD3d at 1270;People v Sanchez, 175 AD2d 817 [1991]), as was her alternate claim, in effect, of actualinnocence (see People v Caccavale,152 AD3d 537 [2017]; People vSmith, 148 AD3d 939 [2017]; People v Rodriguez, 142 AD3d 1189 [2016]). The defendant'sremaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without ahearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw her plea of guilty. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Duffyand Connolly, JJ., concur.