On "letter applications" by prosecutors in criminal cases instead of motions on notice according to the CPLR (New York)

 I have noticed from many submissions of different readers from across the State of New York that often prosecutors "enjoy" a cozy relationship with the court, to the point of not even taking an effort to comply with proper procedure in asking the court for major relief - such as in motions.

A prosecutor simply files a "letter request" to the court - without the required formalities of a notice of motion, supporting affirmation under oath, supporting evidence and memorandum of law, supporting affidavit of service upon parties.

Well, I can bet all that is dear to me on the fact that if a pro se (not represented by an attorney) party files a "letter request" with the court, despite the rule requiring courts to give a "liberal review" to filings of pro se parties, such a "letter request" will be rejected by the court as not a proper motion.

Yet, from a criminal prosecution "letter requests" without following formalities of motions appear to be hunky-dory for some judges.

If a defense attorney does not object against "letter applications" - you know what the defense attorney is doing to his client?  

Depriving him of his right to appeal "as of right" any ruling of the court on such a "letter application" immediately - specifically because the "letter application" was not a formal motion made "on notice":

                "Another consideration for careful 
                practitioners is the availability of appellate 
                review. A request for relief made in the absence 
                of a notice of cross motion is not a "motion ... 
                made upon notice" (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]), 
                so an order granting or denying the request 
                is not appealable as of right, and permission 
                to appeal is necessary (see CPLR 5701 [c]; 
                Blam v Netcher, 17 AD3d 495, 496 [2005]). 
                By contrast, generally, a party may appeal as 
                of right to challenge the disposition of a motion 
                or cross motion made on notice (see 
                CPLR 5701 [a]).

While the client is allowed to appeal immediately and as of right any ruling of the court on a motion made on notice.

So, if your attorney wants to exercise "professional courtesy" to a prosecutor by allowing him/her to make "letter applications" for major breaks at trial (prosecutors do not file motions other than for major breaks at trial), that courtesy (for your money) is, in fact, screwing you as the client - royally - because you will not be even able to appeal the ruling on that "letter application", no matter how badly it affected you.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, I believe, is a major illustration of ineffective representation of counsel.