| People v Gaindarpersaud |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 06285 [188 AD3d 718] |
| November 4, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Yugeshwar Gaindarpersaud, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Caitlyn Carpenter of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Roni Piplani ofcounsel; Anmari Guerrero on the memorandum), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court,Queens County (Charles S. Lopresto, J.), imposed January 22, 2018, upon his plea of guilty, onthe ground that the sentence was excessive.
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waivers of his right to appeal were invalid. The standard writtenappeal waiver forms misstated the applicable law and were misleading (see People v Habersham, 186 AD3d854 [2020]; People v Howard,183 AD3d 640 [2020]; People vWilkinson, 176 AD3d 879 [2019]), and further misstated that the defendant was givingup the right to poor person relief and postconviction remedies in both state and federal courtsseparate from direct appeal (see Peoplev Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 565-566 [2019]; People v Habersham, 186 AD3d at854; People v Suarez-Montoya, 183AD3d 765 [2020]). The Supreme Court's oral colloquies mischaracterized the appellaterights waived as encompassing an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal (see People vThomas, 34 NY3d at 565) and failed to inform the defendant that appellate review remainedavailable for select issues (see People vBaptiste, 181 AD3d 696 [2020]). Thus, the purported waivers do not preclude appellatereview of the defendant's excessive sentence claim.
However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Rivera, J.P., Maltese, Barros, Brathwaite Nelson and Iannacci, JJ., concur.