People v. Rauf

Defendant’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sua sponte rescinding its oral decision granting defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject defendant’s contention on the merits. A nisi prius court “has the inherent power, sua sponte or on motion of a party, to reconsider and vacate its prior decision before issuing an order thereon” (Hulett v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 1 AD3d 999 , 1003 [2003]; see also American Re-Ins. Co. v SGB Universal Bldrs. Supply, 160 AD2d 586 [1990]). Moreover, the court explained that, upon review of the transcripts, it found that issues relating to the plea withdrawal motion required a more developed record prior to determination. Our review of that record indicates that defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536 , 543 [1993]).

The record indicates that defendant’s counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 , 712-714 [1998]). In particular, the favorable nature of the plea bargain demonstrates that defendant received effective assistance (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397 , 404 [1995]).

Defendant’s argument that his trial counsel misadvised him as to the deportation consequences of a conviction (see Padilla v