Porsch, J. DECISION AND ORDER Motion for Contempt of Court or in the alternative, for summary relief pursuant to People v. Feldes, 73 N.Y.2d 661 (1989). Porsch, J.
In view of the Justice Court's failure to file an amended return pursuant to CPL 460.10 (3) as required by order of this court dated October 29, 2008, the allegations in defendant's affidavit of errors are deemed admitted ( see People v Feldes, 73 NY2d 661, 664). Defendant asserts, and the record shows, that there was a 42-day delay in the rendering of a verdict.
At the outset, it should be noted that the justice's return does not respond to defendant's factual allegation in the affirmation of errors that, prior to trial, the court offered defense counsel the opportunity to have defendant plead to a reduced charge, as to which the Trooper's assent would also have been required. Thus, we deem said allegation admitted ( see People v Feldes, 73 NY2d 661). However, plea bargaining is "a practice vital to the efficient administration of the criminal justice system" ( People v Avery, 85 NY2d 503, 506), and there is no reason to assume that because the court suggested a plea bargain, it would have been biased, prejudiced or unable to render an impartial verdict predicated upon the evidence adduced at trial (seePeople v Jenkins , 44 AD3d 1, 7 ["Plea agreements should be tailored to the particular circumstances of the defendant's case' (citation omitted) which is what Supreme Court, the People and defendant, attempted to do"]; People v Gonzalez , 5 AD3d 168, 168 ["There was nothing coercive, biased or otherwise improper about the court's exploration of 'the strength of the People's case, the potential sentence to which defendant was exposed . . . and the favorableness of the plea bargain' (citation omitted)"]).
Under the circumstances herein, we deem the court's return, which did not address the issues asserted in the affidavit of errors, to wit, the failure of the court to conduct an inquiry pursuant to CPL 180.50 before reducing the felony charge to a misdemeanor and the allegedly ineffective assistance of trial counsel, to admit said errors (CPL 460.10 [d], [e]; People v. Hill, 2002 NY Slip Op 40096 [U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]; People v. Middleton, 2002 NY Slip Op 40276 [U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists]). As the errors cannot be deemed harmless ( People v. Feldes, 73 NY2d 661, 664; see People v. Yolles, 92 NY2d 960, 961; People v. Minor, 144 Misc 2d 846, 848 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 1989]), we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand the matter for all further proceedings.
PRESENT: McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ. The return filed by the court fails to set forth "evidence, facts or occurrences . . . which constitute the factual foundation for the contentions alleged in the affidavit of errors" (CPL 460.10 [d]; see People v. Feldes, 73 NY2d 661; People v. Greenbaum, 104 Misc 2d 1012). It is devoid of facts regarding, inter alia, the timing of the arrest, the search of the vehicle and trunk, and the contraband found in the passenger compartment and trunk.
Defendant's affidavit of errors asserts that the court below has a policy of incarcerating those who refuse to take a breathalyzer test and are thereafter convicted of driving while impaired. Inasmuch as there is no denial of said allegation in the Justice's return, it is deemed admitted (People v Feldes, 73 N.Y.2d 661). We are of the view that the policy as such is arbitrary, capricious and unauthorized by statute (People v Ogden, 117 Misc.2d 900, 903-904).