Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree ( Penal Law § 130.80 [1] [b] ), rape in the second degree (§ 130.30 [1]), and sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55) stemming from incidents that were investigated by both the Oswego County Sheriff's Office and Child Protective Services (CPS). As an initial matter, defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as Supreme Court's colloquy did not sufficiently apprise defendant of the scope of the waiver or that certain rights would survive the waiver (seePeople v. Esquilin , 192 A.D.3d 1481, 1481, 140 N.Y.S.3d 796 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955, 147 N.Y.S.3d 536, 170 N.E.3d 410 [2021] ; see alsoPeople v. Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020] ) and the written waiver of the right to appeal executed by defendant did not cure the deficient colloquy (seePeople v. Davis , 188 A.D.3d 1731, 1732, 136 N.Y.S.3d 638 [4th Dept. 2020] ; People v. Harlee , 187 A.D.3d 1586, 1587, 131 N.Y.S.3d 760 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 929, 135 N.Y.S.3d 333, 159 N.E.3d 1100 [2020] ). With respect to the merits, defendant contends that the CPS caseworker who interviewed him while he was in custody was acting as an agent of the police when she interviewed him and that the court thus erred in refusing to suppress the statements he made to her outside the presence of his counsel after his right to counsel had undisputedly attached (seePeople v. Velasquez , 68 N.Y.2d 533, 537, 510 N.Y.S.2d 833, 503 N.E.2

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.80 [1] [b]), rape in the second degree (§ 130.30 [1]), and sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55) stemming from incidents that were investigated by both the Oswego County Sheriff's Office and Child Protective Services (CPS). As an initial matter, defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as Supreme Court's colloquy did not sufficiently apprise defendant of the scope of the waiver or that certain rights would survive the waiver (see People v Esquilin, 192 A.D.3d 1481, 1481 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955 [2021]; see also People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied - U.S. -, 140 S.Ct. 2634 [2020]) and the written waiver of the right to appeal executed by defendant did not cure the deficient colloquy (see People v Davis, 188 A.D.3d 1731, 1732 [4th Dept 2020]; People v Harlee, 187 A.D.3d 1586, 1587 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 929 [2020]). With respect to the merits, defendant contends that the CPS caseworker who interviewed him while he was in custody was acting as an agent of the police when she interviewed him and that the court thus erred in refusing to suppress the statements he made to her outside the presence of his counsel after his right to counsel had undisputedly attached (see People v Velasquez, 68 N.Y.2d 533, 537 [1986]).

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.80 [1] [b]), rape in the second degree (§ 130.30 [1]), and sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55) stemming from incidents that were investigated by both the Oswego County Sheriff's Office and Child Protective Services (CPS). As an initial matter, defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as Supreme Court's colloquy did not sufficiently apprise defendant of the scope of the waiver or that certain rights would survive the waiver (see People v Esquilin, 192 A.D.3d 1481, 1481 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955 [2021]; see also People v Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied - U.S. -, 140 S.Ct. 2634 [2020]) and the written waiver of the right to appeal executed by defendant did not cure the deficient colloquy (see People v Davis, 188 A.D.3d 1731, 1732 [4th Dept 2020]; People v Harlee, 187 A.D.3d 1586, 1587 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 929 [2020]). With respect to the merits, defendant contends that the CPS caseworker who interviewed him while he was in custody was acting as an agent of the police when she interviewed him and that the court thus erred in refusing to suppress the statements he made to her outside the presence of his counsel after his right to counsel had undisputedly attached (see People v Velasquez, 68 N.Y.2d 533, 537 [1986]).