People v. Arcaya - Appellate Division Opinion

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 11th, 2026

Detected March 12th, 2026

Summary

The New York Appellate Division published an opinion in People v. Arcaya on March 11, 2026. The court affirmed the sentence imposed on the defendant, finding it was not excessive despite a deficient oral colloquy regarding the waiver of appeal rights.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued a decision in People v. Arcaya (2026 NY Slip Op 01373) on March 11, 2026. The court addressed the defendant's claim that his sentence was excessive. While the court found that the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent due to a deficient oral colloquy and an unverified written waiver, it ultimately affirmed the sentence.

This decision serves as a reminder for legal professionals to ensure proper procedures are followed when obtaining waivers of appeal rights from defendants. While the sentence was affirmed in this instance, a failure to adequately advise a defendant of their rights could lead to appellate review of claims that would otherwise be waived. The case highlights the importance of precise legal drafting and oral advisement in plea agreements and sentencing.

What to do next

Review procedures for obtaining waivers of appeal rights to ensure compliance with established legal standards.
Ensure all oral colloquies regarding appeal waivers are accurate and comprehensive.
Verify that written waivers are understood by defendants, including translation if necessary.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

People v. Arcaya

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01373
Docket Number: Ind. No. 73359/23
Opinion
Authorities (2)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

People v Arcaya (2026 NY Slip Op 01373)
| People v Arcaya |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01373 |
| Decided on March 11, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided on March 11, 2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
CARL J. LANDICINO
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
2024-03173
(Ind. No. 73359/23)

*[1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

Renny Arcaya, appellant.**

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Brandon C. Vines of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Sarit A. Perl of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Toni M. Cimino, J.), imposed April 8, 2024, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Vilmont, 216 AD3d 1113, 1114). The Supreme Court's oral colloquy mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing the loss of attendant rights to counsel and a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses and, thus, did not adequately advise the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v Burris, 231 AD3d 1063, 1063-1064; People v Lawrence, 227 AD3d 829, 829). Furthermore, the defendant's execution of a written appeal waiver did not cure the deficient oral colloquy (see People v Burris, 231 AD3d at 1064; People v Lawrence, 227 AD3d at 829), as nothing in the record demonstrates that the written appeal waiver was translated for the defendant before it was presented to him for signature (see People v Pelige, 172 AD3d 1407, 1408; People v Hong Mo Lin, 163 AD3d 849, 849), and the court failed to ascertain whether the defendant understood the contents of the written appeal waiver (see People v Haughton, 229 AD3d 467, 468). Thus, the defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal does not preclude appellate review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v Lawrence, 227 AD3d at 829). Nonetheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).