Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Huertas 85 N.Y.2d 898

← Cases

People v. Huertas

85 N.Y.2d 898 Court N.Y. Decision date 1995-03-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 898
[650 NE2d 408, 626 NYS2d 750]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Huertas, Appellant.
Submitted February 16, 1995;
decided March 30, 1995
p. 899
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Edward D. Czaja, Naples, for appellant.
R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney of Ontario County, Canandaigua (Jeffrey R. Taylor of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The alleged agreement between defendant and the prosecutor was never placed on the record or approved by the County Court Judge. Accordingly, defendant cannot now insist that the courts recognize or enforce it (see, People v Curdgel, 83 NY2d 862 , 864; People v Danny G., 61 NY2d 169 ). Since his codefendant pleaded guilty before trial, it cannot be said that the People obtained any concrete benefit from defendant’s agreement to testify against that individual. Defense counsel’s claim that defendant’s agreement to testify may have induced the codefendant to plead guilty is too speculative to warrant granting defendant the relief he seeks.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cases cited