New York Court of Appeals, 1995

People v. Huertas

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 30, 1995 · Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur

650 N.E.2d 408; 85 N.Y.2d 898; 626 N.Y.S.2d 750; 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 688 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Irizarry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
People v. Malloy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Lahoz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Stevens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Scott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Anonymous (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Roberts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Duhaney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Arellano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Anonymous (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Hill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Watford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Palumbo (New York Supreme Court 1997)
People v. Lichtel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.