People v. Schiff

People v Schiff 2026 NY Slip Op 05610 October 1, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Schiff, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: October 01, 2026 Ind No. 165/18|165/18|Appeal No. 7119|Case No. 2019-03782| Before: Moulton, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Michael, Hagler, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Frances Weil of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew H. Chung of counsel), for respondent. [*1] Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Guy H. Mitchell, J.), rendered May 2, 2019, as amended July 2, 2019, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a jail term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed. Under the totality of the circumstances, defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was invalid (see People v Wann, 236 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2025]). "[N]either the court nor defense counsel made clear on the record that defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the numerous other trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty" (People v McCree, 113 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2014]). The court also "never adequately explained the nature of the waiver" or the rights that defendant was waiving (People v Ramos, 122 AD3d 462, 464 [1st Dept 2014]). The court failed to establish that defendant had "actually signed the written form and was aware of its content" (People v Acosta, 133 AD3d 506, 507 [1st Dept 2015]), nor did the court confirm that defendant had discussed the written waiver with counsel (see People v Trulove, 238 AD3d 55, 62 [1st Dept 2025]). However, defendant failed to preserve his claims that the court denied him his statutory right to speak at sentencing and violated his due process rights by failing to conduct any inquiry into whether he violated a condition of the plea by failing to complete community service (see People v Orenstein, 230 AD3d 1068, 1068 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1054 [2024]; People v Gonzalez, 305 AD2d 231, 231 [1st Dept 2003]). Defendant also failed to preserve his contention that the court failed to set completion of community service before sentencing as a condition of his plea and told him that his community service location would be determined at the time of sentencing (see People v Spruill, 200 AD3d 475, 475 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 930 [2022]). We decline to reach defendant's claims in the interest of justice. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 1, 2026