Whether defense counsel's statement, made at Defendant's sentencing hearing, regarding Defendant's defense strategy in a separate case constituted fraud or misrepresentation after a different defense strategy was employed.

No. Defense counsel's statement did not constitute fraud or misrepresentation because defense counsel qualified the statement by stating that the defense strategy met his own standards but had not yet been tested.

Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. During sentencing, defendant sought to be adjudicated a youthful offender. The prosecution opposed the application by asking the court to consider a recent indictment of the defendant for robbery and related offenses. Defense counsel responded by stating that an alibi defense was available. Defense counsel, however, qualified his statement by stating that the alibi was valid under his own standards, but that the alibi had not yet been tested. The County Court granted Defendant's motion and sentenced him to five years probation as a youthful offender. The court, however, noted that it would re-sentence the Defendant if he was found to be guilty of the separate charges. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the separate charges. The County Court re-sentenced Defendant on the basis that Defendant obtained the youthful offender adjudication by fraud. The Appellate Division affirmed.

The Court of Appeals reversed the order re-sentencing Defendant and reinstated the original adjudication. The Court stated that defense counsel's statement regarding an alibi defense in the separate case did not constitute fraud or misrepresentation because defense counsel qualified the alibi defense as not yet being tested. The Court also concluded that, in this case, a statement employing subjective language to describe a theory of defense could not, as matter of law, constitute fraud or misrepresentation sufficient to vacate a youthful offender adjudication.