The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 440.10(2)(c). . . .
. . . . §§ 220.60(3), 440.10 )). . . . withdraw the plea under C.P.L. § 220.60(3) or move to vacate the judgment of conviction under C.P.L. § 440.10 . . . to state court's holding that petitioner's due process claim was procedurally barred under C.P.L. § 440.10 . . .
. . . We held that such a conclusion would implicate section 440.10(2), Florida Statutes, which provides that . . .
. . . . § 2254 petition in this Court in which he challenges the state trial court's denial of his CPL § 440.10 . . . a second or successive petition because (1) the current petition challenges the state court's CPL § 440.10 . . . That the petitioner does so by challenging the state-court decision denying his CPL § 440.10 motion, . . . The decision denying his CPL § 440.10 motion does not constitute a new "judgment" for habeas purposes . . .
. . . Law § 440.10(f), (g) and (h). See People v. . . . The central basis for the sought-after relief was § 440.10(g), which under certain circumstances allows . . . Law § 440.10 ("First 440 Tr." and "Second 440 Tr.," respectively), and deposition testimony taken in . . .
. . . (1)(h) (the "440.10 motion"). . . . In his 440.10 motion, Garner contended that he was denied the right to meaningful representation by trial . . . Citing to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10(2)(c) and People v. . . . New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10(2)(c) stipulates that the court must deny a motion to vacate . . . Law §] 440.10 from being employed as a substitute for direct appeal when defendant was in a position . . .
. . . Law §§ 440.10(2)(a) and (c) (McKinney 1994)-simply prescribe a rule of decision for a court confronted . . . Consequently, the alleged failure of respondent's application to comply with §§ 440.10(2)(a) and (c) . . .
. . . . § 440.10(1)(b) ). . . . Stat. § 440.10(1)(b) ; Revoredo , 698 So.2d at 890-92 ; Motchkavitz v. L.C. . . .
. . . A petition to vacate Pierotti's conviction pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") § 440.10 . . . should have been raised upon direct appeal and the failure to so do precludes relief pursuant to CPL § 440.10 . . . A motion for leave to appeal the decision on the CPL 440.10 petition was denied on June 4, 2007. . . .
. . . .- (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other . . .
. . . Similarly, in reviewing Hughes's CPL § 440.10 motion, the Albany County Supreme Court concluded that . . . Additionally, although Hughes argued conclusorily in his CPL § 440.10 motion that trial counsel "[f]ailed . . . While this action was stayed, Hughes raised this argument in a counseled CPL § 440.10 motion. . . . Regarding petitioner's wife, as the § 440.10 court found, trial counsel stated in his affidavit that . . . Id. at 91 (citing CPL § 440.10(2)(c) ); see also Clark, 510 F.3d at 393. . . .
. . . Law § 440.10(1)(h), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. . . . Att. 1") ) (" Section 440.10 Motion"), at 6-7. . . . Att. 1 at *62), his Section 440.10 Motion, a letter from the office of Dawn M. . . . Law § 440.10(1)(h) on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. . . . See Pet. at 4; Section 440.10 Motion. . . .
. . . Northstar did not sublet part of its contract work to a subcontractor in the context of Florida Statute [§] 440.10 . . .
. . . The 440.10 Motion 1. . . . See 440.10 Decision at 8-9. . . . See 440.10 Decision at 10. . . . See 440.10 Decision at 36. . . . . § 440.10 Decision and Order, filed Aug. 1, 2016 (Docket # 39) ("440.10 Decision"), at 5. . . .
. . . later moved pro se for an order to vacate the judgment pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 440.10 . . . The petitioner filed his CPL § 440.10 motion pro se. . . . to this Court is simply an organizational refinement of the two arguments he presented in his CPL § 440.10 . . . The petitioner's CPL § 440.10 motion was based entirely on ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims . . . The respondent briefly argues that this claim is unexhausted because the petitioner in his CPL § 440.10 . . .
. . . vacate his conviction in state court pursuant to New York Criminal j Procedure Law (“C.P.L.”) section 440.10 . . . habeas petition so that he may seek to vacate his judgment in state. court pursuant to C.P.L. section 440.10 . . . motion, Petitioner only states 'that he seeks an abeyance so that he may “file a criminal procedure law [440.10 . . . Without any information and details as to the claim Petitioner seeks to' file as part of his 440.10 motion . . .
. . . Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, based . . . Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal the trial court’s denial of Spicola’s § 440.10 . . .
. . . Stat. (2008) (except as otherwise provided, “[t]he liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall . . . VMS, Inc., 147 So.3d at 1074-75; § 440.10(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .
. . . Criminal Procedure Law (“NYCPL”) § 440.10(1) (h) to vacate his judgment of conviction on the grounds . . . On August 13 and 14, 2012, a post-conviction Section 440.10(l)(h) hearing was ordered concerning the . . . On January 10, 2013, the reopened Section 440.10 hearing was conducted, and Auerbach was examined by . . . 97 (2014) (holding'that a “freestanding claim of actual innocehce may be addressed pursuant to CPL 440.10 . . . The testimony of these doctors was taken as part of Petitioner’s post-conviction Section 440.10 hearing . . .
. . . . § 440.10(1)(b). . . . The Florida Supreme Court has explained that the “effect of section 440.10 is that where a subcontractor . . . “To be a contractor under [section 440.10(1) ], one must have a contractual obligation to perform some . . . , the court held that a- statute: ry employer-employee relationship existed within the meaning of § 440.10 . . .
. . . Waiters filed both a pro se motion to vacate his conviction under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . . (l)(h) (the “440.10 motion”) and, with the assistance of counsel, a direct appeal. . . . 4, 2011, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for the same reasons as those identified in his 440.10 . . . The state trial court thereafter held an evidentiary hearing on Waiters’s renewed 440.10 motion on May . . . Following the hearing, on October 14, 2014, the state trial court denied Waiters’s renewed 440.10 motion . . . At the hearing to vacate Waiters’s conviction under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10, conducted . . .
. . . . § 440.10, as the District Attorney concedes. . . .
. . . matter of record and are therefore improperly raised herein, as it is well established that a CPL § 440.10 . . . Law § 440.10(2)(c)). . . . Hudyih does not dispute that § 440.10(2)(c) constitutes an independent state law ground for denial, but . . . Moreover, Fulton acknowledged that New York courts apply § 440.10(2)(c), as occurred here, where the . . . Accordingly, because Hudyih’s was a record-based claim, state case law confirms'that compliance with § 440.10 . . .
. . . . §§ 440.10(1), 440.38; see, e.g., Mena v. J.I.L. Constr. Grp. . . . Stat. § 440.10(l)(g)(l). . . .
. . . Aparicio, 269 F.3d at 91 (citing GPL § 440.10 (2)(c)); see Clark v. . . . Perez, 510 F.3d 382, 393 (2d Cir.2008) (holding that “even if no state court had applied section 440.10 . . . Bennett, 353 F.3d 135, 140-41 (2d Cir.2003) (applying CPL § 440.10 (2)(c) to claims raised for the first . . .
. . . Wert and Rubber Applications alleged that section 440.10(l)(e) therefore applied. . . . Vertical relationships as set forth in section 440.10(1)(b) are subject to the liability in section 440.10 . . . and immunity in' section 440.10(1)(e). . . . (l)(b) and horizontal relationships under section 440.10(l)(e)). . . . And section 440.10 requires subcontractors to secure coverage for their employees. . . .
. . . Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10. . . . Here, there is no dispute that Section 440.10 is “firmly established and regularly followed.” . . . Criminal Procedure Law Section 440.10(2)(e). . . . To the contrary, while 440.10(2)(c) is designed “to prevent Section 440.10 from being employed as a substitute . . . Section 440.10(2)(c) provides, [T]he court must deny a motion to vacate a judgment when ... . . .
. . . order vacating O’Neal’s rape and robbery convictions pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . .
. . . . § 440.10 for an order vacating his conviction on the ground of newly discovered evidence, pursuant . . . to C.P.L. § 440.10(l)(g), based principally on the Ellis recant and the materials corroborating it, and . . . ineffective assistance of counsel, pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.10(l)(h), based principally on Brettschneider . . . Holder first held that “this portion of defendant’s motion to vacate must be denied pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.10 . . . Id. at 4-5 (quoting C.P.L. § 440.10(2)(c)). . . .
. . . . §§ 440.10 through § 440.50, 440.70”), For instance, 42 C.F.R. § 440.50(a) defines “physicians’ services . . .
. . . Section 440 Motion Duhs did not file a motion pursuant to C.P.L. 440.10 for vacatur of the judgment against . . . See C.P.L. 440.10(1) (“At any time after the entry of a judgment, the court in which it was entered may . . . Id. at § 440.10(l)(h). . . . . § 440.10(2)(a). . . .
. . . there is no evidence that Sacred Heart subcontracted “contract work” within the meaning of section 440.10 . . . depends on whether Sacred Heart was a so-called “statutory employer” of Mathis pursuant to section 440.10 . . . “It is well established ... that to satisfy section 440.10(l)(b), the contractual obligation may be implied . . . In other words, the “contract work” to which section 440.10(l)(b) refers may arise from an implied in . . . obligation to provide safe premises to provide a basis for statutory employer immunity under section 440.10 . . .
. . . Law § 440.10(l)(h), in the state trial court in which he was convicted. . . .
. . . . § 440.10. . . . and non-record evidence and that he thinks should have been permitted to raise it in a collateral § 440.10 . . . bottomed on an evidentiary exploration by collateral or post-conviction proceeding brought under CPL 440.10 . . .
. . . to vacate his judgment of conviction pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law (“NYCPL”) Section 440.10 . . . The court rejected those arguments in a decision and order dated October 1, 2007 (“Section 440.10 Ruling . . . Reynoso, [32 A.D.3d 761,] 820 N.Y.S.2d 801 (1st Dep’t 2006), dated May 2006; C.P.L. 440.10 Decision ( . . . “§ 440.10 Ruling”), dated October 1, 2007; the Petition, dated May 4, 2009; Respondent’s Declaration . . . Decision, dated October 1, 2007 ("Section 440.10 Ruling”); Petition for Habeas Relief Pursuant to 28 . . .
. . . appeal was pending, Prescott moved to vacate the judgment pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . .
. . . appeal, Chrysler filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . . The trial court denied Chrysler’s § 440.10 motion on September 30, 2005, holding that both his claims . . .
. . . Here, the State court reviewing Watts’s motion to vacate his conviction under Section 440.10 of New York . . .
. . . Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 (“§ 440.10”) to vacate his conviction. . . . The state court denied Fulton’s motion to vacate, resting its decision on the directive in § 440.10(2 . . . Here, the state court based its decision on the procedural rule articulated in § 440.10(2)(e). . . . Section 440.10(2)(c) requires the state court to deny a motion to vacate a judgment when, “[although . . . In denying Fulton’s § 440.10 motion to vacate, the state court explained that § 440.10(2)(c) barred Fulton . . .
. . . or has otherwise secured the payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor, consistent with s. 440.10 . . . This conclusion is separately confirmed by reading section 440.10(e), Florida Statutes (2014), which . . . (amending §§ 440.02(15)(c) & 440.10(e)). ' After the 2003 .amendment, section 440.10(e) now reads: (e . . . Compare § 440.10(e) with § 440.11(1). . . . Accordingly, we hold that the current versions of sections 440.02(15)(c), 440.10(e), and 440.11, when . . .
. . . filed a pro se motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) § 440.10 . . . By reasoned, unpublished decision issued on November 28, 2011, county court denied the CPL § 440.10 motion . . . , citing CPL § 440.10(2)(b), which requires a court to deny a motion to vacate a judgement when “[t]he . . . Jones’ appellate counsel obtained leave to appeal the CPL § 440.10 denial in conjunction with his direct . . . In his pro se CPL § 440.10 motion, Jones stated that Detective Caratelli’s testimony at a subsequent . . .
. . . See §§ 440.10(l)(b), 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . Slora’s direct employer, section 440.10(l)(b) extends immunity to a “contractor [that] sublets any part . . . Sun 'n Fun’s theory was that, under the undisputed facts, section 440.10(l)(b) entitled it to immunity . . . benefits for any employee who is injured at work. § 440.10(l)(a). . . . In that connection, section 440.10(l)(b) provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of . . .
. . . requires the State plan .to provide categorically needy individuals with the “services defined in § 440.10 . . . physician or dentist; and (3) are furnished in an [appropriate and approved] institution....” 42- C.F.R. § 440.10 . . .
. . . See Notice of Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to C.P.L 440.10(1)(c)(h) 1, Mar. 11, 2013, Occhione . . . Law § 440.10 note (McKinney 2015) (Practice Commentaries). . . .
. . . Law § 440.10, seeking relief from his conviction. These motions were denied. . . . Law § 440.10 to vacate his conviction. . . .
. . . He then collaterally attacked his conviction pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10, alleging . . . Following the trial court’s denial of the § 440.10 motion and the Second Department’s denial of leave . . .
. . . Law § 440.10 note (McKinney 2015) (Practice Commentaries) (“[N.Y.Crim. Pro. . . . Law § 440.10] was designed to encompass all extant non-appellate post-judgment remedies and motions to . . .
. . . . § 440.10 (“440 Motion”). App. I at 87-219. . . . trial court dismissed the claim as procedurally barred pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . . then the court should not review it in [a 440] motion” pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . . New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10(2)(c) states: 2. ... the court must deny a motion to vacate . . . Law § 440.10(2)(c). Here, Petitioner could have raised the issue regarding Ms.' . . .
. . . Law § 440.10 (“§ 440.10 motion”). State Record, Exhibit E. . . . Law § 440.10(2)(a), which bars § 440.10 review of claims determined on the merits on direct appeal. . . . Law § 440.10(2)(a). . . . Law § 440.10(2)(a). However, a denial under N.Y.Crim. Proc. . . . Law § 440.10(2)(c) precludes federal habeas review. McDowell v. . . .
. . . . § 440.10(l)(b). . . .
. . . Law §§ 440.10, 440.20 (“440 Motion”). Petition at ¶ 9, p. 16; Opp. at ¶ 75-76. . . .
. . . No. 10-2 at 581-592, Notice of Motion and Affidavit in Support of CPL § 440.10 Motion, dated December . . . Id. at 594-600, Attorney Affirmation in Support of Petitioner’s CPL § 440.10 Motion. . . . Id. at 716-718, Affirmation in Opposition to Petitioner’s CPL § 440.10 Motion. . . . Id. at 804 (citing, inter alia, CPL § 440.10(2)(c), (3)(a)). . . . Respondent advises that Deyo’s CPL § 440.10 motion was denied following a hearing. R. . . .
. . . Law §§ 440.10 and 440. 20. Opp. to Petition at ¶ 22; Tr. II.l at 48-79. . . .
. . . April 29, 2010, Petitioner moved, pro se, pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) section 440.10 . . . Aug. 17, 2010) (citing N.Y.C.P.L. § 440.10(2)(c), annexed to Pet. as Ex. D.) . . . Saunders, 587 F.3d at 548 (noting that a section 440.10 motion is “pending” beginning on the day it is . . . See Plato, 638 F.Supp.2d at 345 (“neither of [petitionerl’s CPL [section] 440.10 mo-tions had any effect . . .
. . . Law § 440.10(2)(c) “requires a state court to deny a motion to vacate a judgment based on a constitutional . . . “The purpose of this rule ‘is to prevent Section 440.10 from being employed as a substitute for direct . . .
. . . that Sunbelt was a subcontractor on the project entitled to horizontal immunity pursuant to section 440.10 . . . See § 440.10, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . . The doctrine of horizontal immunity, re-enacted in 2004, under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes . . . Thus, the intent of section 440.10 is “to ensure that employees engaged in the same contract work are . . . Stated another way, “[t]he rationale of [section 440.10] is to equate the situation of work[ers] at a . . .
. . . (“CPL”) §§ 440.10(l)(f), (h). . . . planting of falsified evidence, and Hernandez’s absence from testifying as proeedurally barred under CPL § 440.10 . . .
. . . . § 440.10 motion briefs and any state court decision on that motion, if available; and (3) copies of . . .
. . . the Bronx County Supreme Court to vacate his conviction pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . . In 2009 Smith, through counsel, filed a second § 440.10 motion, arguing for the first time that his trial . . . The State Court denied Smith’s § 440.10 motion on February 8, 2010. . . . under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, reasserting the ineffective assistance claim raised earlier in his counseled § 440.10 . . .
. . . Section 440.10 Mot. Exh. 8. . . . Section 440.10 Mot. Exh. 4. . . . Section 440.10 Mot. at 7-10. . . . Section 440.10 Mot. at 6. . . . . Section 440.10 Mot. Exh. 24. . . .
. . . JCC employed the proper legal standards in concluding OCSB was not a statutory employer under section 440.10 . . . legal theories to establish OCSB as her employer, including that of a statutory employer under section 440.10 . . . Claimant’s theories, finding, in particular, that OCSB was not Claimant’s statutory employer under 440.10 . . . In the final order on appeal, the JCC ruled that OCSB was not a statutory employer under section 440.10 . . . It is well established, however, that to satisfy section 440.10(l)(b), the contractual obligation may . . .
. . . to permit him to move to set aside his verdict pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 440.10 . . . Specifically, at the time Newton filed suit, Section 440.10(l)(g) of the New York Criminal Procedure . . . Law § 440.10(g) (McKinney 1970). . . . At all relevant times, Section 440.10 provided as follows: At any time after the entry of a judgment, . . . Law § 440.10(l)(g) (McKinney 2012); N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10(l)(g) (McKinney 1970). . . . .
. . . No. 11-1, Affidavit and Memorandum of Law in Support of CPL § 440.10 Motion. . . . No. 11-2, People’s Response in Opposition to CPL § 440.10 Motion, at 2-3. . . . No. 11-17, Affirmation in Opposition to CPL § 440.10 Motion, at 5-7. . . . motion, and that denial of his claims was also warranted pursuant to CPL § 440.10(3)(c). . . . In the first CPL § 440.10 motion, petitioner contended in relevant part that counsel was ineffective . . .
. . . Section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that “[i]n case a contractor sublets any part . . . carriers, and remand for further proceedings to include consideration of the applicability of section 440.10 . . .
. . . Law § 440.10, Contreras has never indicated to the state courts that he, in fact, saw the Note on the . . .
. . . which was nine months after he had sought leave to appeal the March 3, 2000, denial of his section 440.10 . . .
. . . In March 2013, Petitioner moved pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 440.10 to vacate . . .
. . . (“Section 440.10 Motion”), which the Court deemed included in his Petition, (id. at 6), all of which . . . (R & R 17; see also Resp.’s Ex. 39 (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Section 440.10 Motion), at i, 8.) . . . (See R & R 17; Mem. of Law in Supp. of Section 440.10 Motion at i.) . . . (R & R 17; Mem. of Law in Supp. of Section 440.10 Motion at i, 52.) . . . As for Points One, Three, and Eight of Petitioner’s Section 440.10 Motion, this Court dismissed these . . .
. . . Division and subsequently a motion in the trial court pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . .
. . . liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such borrowed employees as required in s. 440.10 . . .
. . . Section 440.10(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes provides that “[ejvery employer ... shall be liable for, . . . Section 440.10(l)(b) extends the liability imposed by section 440.10(l)(a) on employers to secure insurance . . . The effect of section 440.10 is that where a subcontractor performing part of the work of a contractor . . . See § 440.10(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2013); § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . Section 440.11(1) provides: The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and . . .
. . . .— (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other . . . Haines was the decedent’s "statutory employer” entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to sections 440.10 . . .
. . . Section 440.10 Motion Jackson argued in his § 440.10 motion that defense counsel’s performance was deficient . . . Direct Appeal While his § 440.10 motion remained pending in the trial court, Jackson filed a counseled . . . Jackson’s ineffective assistance arguments were essentially the same as those raised in his § 440.10 . . . Law § 440.10(2)(e) (stating that the court “must deny” a § 440.10 motion when sufficient facts appear . . . Law § 440.10(2)(b)). . . .
. . . subsequently filed two motions to vacate his conviction pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . . ADA McCarthy also submitted a declaration in connection with the petitioner’s first § 440.10 motion, . . . However, in his second section § 440.10 motion, he claimed that he was denied the effective assistance . . . The petitioner raised a challenge to the validity of his Indictment in connection with his second § 440.10 . . . The petitioner does not appear to argue here — as he did in support of his second § 440.10 motion — that . . .
. . . McCray’s motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 was also denied by the state court, and . . . jury: he attempted to present this claim in his pro se motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . .
. . . C.P.L. § 440.10, to vacate his judgment. (Id. ¶ 22). . . . 4.2006 C.P.L. § 440.10 Motion ¶¶ 1824; see also Deel. ¶¶ 12, 22). . . . C.P.L. § 440.10 motion. . . . C.P.L. § 440.10 motion. . . . “good cause shown”); § 440.10(l)(g) (permitting § 440.10 motions when “[n]ew evidence has been discovered . . .
. . . .”) -§ 440.10. The trial court (Buscaglia, J.) denied the motion on August 31, 2011. . . . Petitioner filed a second' C.P.L. § 440.10 motion on February 22, 2012. . . .
. . . . § 440.10(1). . . . The Florida Supreme Court has explained that the “effect of section 440.10 is that where a subcontractor . . . Orama, 552 So.2d at 925-26 (rejecting general contractor’s argument that Section 440.10(1) did not apply . . .
. . . (Pet. ¶ 14; see also Resp’t’s Ex. 42 (§ 440.10 Motion).) . . . Law § 440.10(3)(a)).) . . . Law § 440.10(2)(a). . . . to § 440.10(2)(a)); D’Alessandro v. . . . Law § 440.10(3)(a)).) . . .
. . . district court erred in failing to conclude that the New York State Supreme Court’s denial of his CPL § 440.10 . . .
. . . Jefferson 440.10 Aff. ¶ 4. . . . Jefferson 440.10 Aff. ¶ 5. . . . See 440.10 Notice of Motion, Docket Entry 5-18, at 1. . . . Pet. 440.10 Affirm. ¶ 1; Pet. 440.10 Mem. at 1-2, Docket Entry 5-18 at 4, 32-33. . . . Law Section 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction, Docket Entry 5-18 at 29. . . .
. . . Section 440.10(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2008) provides: Every employer coming within the provisions of . . . Section 440.10(l)(b) provides further: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract . . . Under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2008): The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 . . .
. . . Based on the newly revealed information, Poventud moved, pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . . Attorney’s Office opposed Poventud’s release on bail and indicated its desire to appeal the court’s § 440.10 . . . Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10, to vacate his conviction on the ground that the prosecution had impermissibly . . . On December 6, 2004, Plaintiffs assigned counsel filed a CPL § 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction . . .
. . . . § 440.10 to set aside one of his prior misdemeanor convictions. . . . the first time that, as his counsel had predicted at sentencing, the state court had granted his § 440.10 . . . petitioner explains that he “wrote the state Court several times inquiring the status of his C.P.L. 440.10 . . .
. . . Law § 440.10(2)(b)). . . . rule, specifically New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10(2)(b). . . . Law § 440.10(2)(b). See People v. . . . Law § 440.10(1). . . . . Law § 440.10(2)(b). . . . .
. . . reversing an order finding the amendment was a clarification; concluding that “the 2003 revision to section 440.10 . . . years after the Court decided Abernathy and some twenty-nine years after the 1974 amendment to section 440.10 . . .
. . . . § 440.10. He presented two issues for review. . . . 19, 2008, petitioner filed a pro se motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to section 440.10 . . . of these allegations on direct appeal; however, petitioner asserted both of these claims in his CPL 440.10 . . . The trial court denied petitioner’s contentions pursuant to CPL § 440.10(2)(c), which provides that a . . . Further, the cases in this Circuit hold that C.P.L. § 440.10(2)(c) is an “adequate and independent” state . . .
. . . a pro se motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . . In its response to the section 440.10 motion, the State maintained that it had never offered the defendant . . . The lynchpin of the magistrate judge’s decision was his determination that in denying the section 440.10 . . . The relevant portion of the affirmation submitted by ADA Krisehel in the section 440.10 proceedings was . . . New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10(2)(a) provides that a "court must deny a motion to vacate a . . .
. . . . § 440.10: Lawyer never told defendant that [N.Y. . . .
. . . The Howells then moved in state court, pursuant to New York’s Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10, to vacate . . . Second, we agree with the District Court that, in ruling on the § 440.10 motions, the state court did . . . Rather, the § 440.10 court merely explained that it did not believe that the Howells’ trial attorneys . . . If the § 440.10 court had found some merit to the Howells’ Confrontation Clause claims, it is conceivable . . . Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10(l)(h), "[a]t any time after the entry of a judgment, the . . .
. . . Thereafter, Green moved pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10(l)(b),. . . . leave to appeal from the County Court order denying his motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 . . .
. . . State Section 440.10 Proceeding........................................150 D. . . . State Section 440.10 Proceeding In 2010, petitioner moved to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant . . . to Section 440.10 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law. . . .
. . . .”) § 440.10 on the grounds that: (1) Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective because counsel: (a) . . . Law §§ 440.10(2)(b), (c). . . . C.P.L. § 440.10, and it-was summarily denied (Order dated March 10, 2008). . . . Petitioner has therefore failed to show that the state court ruling on his 440.10 motion to vacate was . . . Law §§ 440.10(2)(b), (c). It was not. . . .
. . . The coram nobis petition repeated the same grounds raised in the Section 440.10 motion. (Id.) Mr. . . . Smith’s NYCPL § 440.10 motion was assigned to Justice Torres, not the trial judge, because the trial . . . Smith’s Section 440.10 motion again be denied, but that a corrected opinion issue. . . . ’s claims were procedurally barred, under NYCPL § 440.10(3)(c), because Mr. . . . Smith’s application for leave to appeal the denial of his second NYCPL § 440.10 motion. . . .
. . . . § 440.10 motion in New York State Supreme Court, seeking to vacate his conviction on the same grounds . . . , 2007, I stayed consideration of Whitley’s habeas petition until the New York courts decided his § 440.10 . . . Meanwhile, the New York Supreme Court denied Whitley’s § 440.10 motion on April 16, 2007, holding that . . .
. . . Senkowski, 587 F.3d 543 (2d Cir.2009) the Second Circuit held that "a § 440.10 motion is 'pending' for . . .
. . . Zeiger, 16 So.3d at 913; see also § 440.10(1)(e). B. . . .
. . . . §§ 440.10-.il (2003). . . . Stat. §§ 440.10-.il. . . . favorable to the plaintiff, Vallejos cannot prove that Infinity was grossly negligent under section 440.10 . . . Stat. § 440.10(1)(e) (2). . . . Stat. § 440.10. . An election of remedies presupposes a right to at least two viable options. . . .
. . . Section 440.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), again holds every employer, contractor, and subcontractor . . . More specifically, section 440.10(1)(b) states: (b) In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of . . . The trial court determined that the stipulated facts brought this case within the terms of section 440.10 . . . a part of its work to a subcontractor— Southern Crane — such that, under the provisions of section 440.10 . . . as the subcontractor, could not claim the “exclusiveness-of-liability” benefit conferred by section 440.10 . . .
. . . Law section 440.10. See Dkt. No. 13, Ex. A, Motion to Vacate Judgment (“Mot. to Vacate”) at 2. . . . Law § 440.10(2)(b)). . . . Law § 440.10(2)(e) (motion to vacate must be denied where the claim is a matter of record that could . . . It is well-settled in this Circuit that section 440.10(2)(b) can provide an adequate and independent . . . See Hemphill, 2004 WL 943567, at *8 (holding that a claim denied under section 440.10(2)(b), which is . . .