The People v. Elmer Castillo The People v. Brian Degraffenreid, 73 N.E.3d 341 (NY 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
The People v. Elmer Castillo The People v. Brian Degraffenreid, 73 N.E.3d 341 (NY 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Firu (Victor) (nyappterm, 2020-08-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Firu (Victor)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2020 · confidence medium
In addition, defendant's contentions that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor read the contents of the domestic incident report (DIR) to the jury during summation and because [*5]the Criminal Court's charge to the jury about prior inconsistent{**69 Misc 3d at 8} statements was insufficient are unpreserved for appellate review, as no objections thereto were made at trial ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Castillo , 29 NY3d 935, 937 [2017]; People v Romero , 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Hansen , 153 AD3d 1431, 1432 [2017]), and these contentions should not be reviewed in the inter…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bush
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
When viewing the instructions in their totality, we cannot say that counsel's failure to object to these remarks equated to deficient representation ( see People v Castillo , 29 NY3d 935, 937 [2017]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Degraffenreid v. Lee
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · confidence medium
People v. Degraffenreid, 29 N.Y.3d 935, 937 (2017).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Elmer Castillo, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brian Degraffenreid, Appellant
73 SSM 6 and 74 SSM 7.
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 23, 2017.
73 N.E.3d 341
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York City (Akash M. Toprani, George R. Painter IV and Samuel S. Brickfield of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action., Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled action., Dar cel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Lori Ann Farrington of counsel), for respondent in the first and second above-entitled actions.
Difiore, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed in each case. Codefendants Elmer Castillo and Brian Degraffen-reid appeal from orders of the Appellate Division affirming their convictions for manslaughter in the first degree. Co-defendants’ challenge to the trial court’s general charge on causation is unpreserved, and there was no mode of proceedings error (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; see also People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 472 [1980]; People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976]). In addition, defense counsel’s failure to object to the charge does not constitute ineffective assistance, as the jury instructions, viewed in totality, neither improperly shifted the burden to codefendants nor relieved the People of their burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Thomas, 50 NY2d at 472; see also People v Drake, 7 NY3d 28, 33-34 [2006]). Additionally, codefendants’remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims are without merit as both codefendants received meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; see also People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 714 [1998]; People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183-184 [1989]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]).

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

[*938] In each case: On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.