Tyson v. Nazarian, 103 A.D.3d 1254 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Tyson v. Nazarian, 103 A.D.3d 1254 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2015–2018 · …denied effective assistance of trial counsel merely because counsel did not make a motion or argument that had little or no chance of success at p. 1256 ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Allen (nyappdiv, 2015-10-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Allen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The jury rejected the self-serving account offered by defendant as to the reasons for his behavior and, according due deference to that credibility determination, we conclude that the larceny convictions are not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Joslyn, 103 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]; see also People v Smith, 140 AD2d 259, 260-261 [1988], lv denied 72 NY2d 924 [1988]; People v Burnice, 112 AD2d 642, 643 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Thus, any CPL 30.30 motion would have been without merit (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]), and defendant was not “denied effective assistance of trial counsel merely because counsel [did] not make a motion or argument that [had] little or no chance of success” (People v Joslyn, 103 AD3d 1254, 1256 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Barksdale, 129 AD3d 1497, 1498 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jackson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Thus, any CPL 30.30 motion would have been without merit (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]), and defendant was not “denied effective assistance of trial counsel merely because counsel [did] not make a motion or argument that [had] little or no chance of success” (People v Joslyn, 103 AD3d 1254, 1256 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Barksdale, 129 AD3d 1497, 1498 [2015]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) COLANGELO, SR., RONALD P. v. MARRIOTT, FREDERICK L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Tyson v Nazarian, 103 AD3d 1254, 1254 [2013]; Rogers v Edelman, 79 AD3d 1803, 1804 [2010]; Guadagno v Norward, 43 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2007]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Avent
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
"A defendant is not denied effective assistance of . . . counsel merely because counsel does not make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success" ( People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]; see People v Joslyn , 103 AD3d 1254, 1256 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michel D. Tyson
v.
Lawrence Nazarian
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 8, 2013.
103 A.D.3d 1254
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered August 15, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order and judgment granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint and denied the motion and cross motion of plaintiff for summary judgment. The order and judgment was affirmed by order of this Court entered June 8, 2012 (96 AD3d 1349), and the Court of Appeals on December 18, 2012 modified the order by denying the motion of defendant for summary judgment and remitted the case to this Court for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum (20 NY3d 967 [2012]).

Now, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals,

It is hereby ordered that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting that part of plaintiffs “motion and cross motion” for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s negligence and as modified the order and judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On remittitur from the Court of Appeals, we are called upon to address plaintiff’s contention that she is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s negligence. On this record, it is undisputed that defendant made a left-hand turn in his vehicle, in front of plaintiffs vehicle. The driver in the lane closest to defendant had stopped to give defendant the opportunity to turn, but defendant could not or did not see plaintiffs vehicle in the outer lane. When defendant executed the turn, he collided with plaintiffs vehicle, which was traveling straight through the intersection with the right-of-way. Plaintiff likewise did not see defendant’s vehicle until it was too late to stop without a collision. Thus, the evidence establishes as a matter of law that defendant was negligent and that his negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Rogers v Edelman, 79 AD3d 1803, 1804 [2010]; Guadagno v Norward, 43 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2007]). We therefore modify the order and judgment by granting that part of plaintiffs “motion and cross motion” for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s negligence. Present—Centra, J.P, Garni, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.