intoxication defense in New York

2012Turning to his claims regarding an intoxication defense, there was nothing in defendant’s factual recitation during the plea allocution that obligated County Court to conduct a further in quiry into a potential intoxication defense prior to accepting defendant’s guilty plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Wagoner, 30 AD3d 629, 629 [2006]).

2012Turning to his claims regarding an intoxication defense, there was nothing in defendant’s factual recitation during the plea allocution that obligated County Court to conduct a further in quiry into a potential intoxication defense prior to accepting defendant’s guilty plea (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Wagoner, 30 AD3d 629, 629 [2006]).

2017Inasmuch as defendant provided little beyond the bare claim “that he was intoxicated,” County Court was correct to reject his request for an intoxication instruction (People v Gaines, 83 NY2d at 927 ; see People v Sturdevant, 74 AD3d 1491, 1493 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Maxwell, 260 AD2d 653, 653-654 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 [1999]).

2017Inasmuch as defendant provided little beyond the bare claim “that he was intoxicated,” County Court was correct to reject his request for an intoxication instruction (People v Gaines, 83 NY2d at 927 ; see People v Sturdevant, 74 AD3d 1491, 1493 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Maxwell, 260 AD2d 653, 653-654 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 [1999]).

2015Under the circumstances presented on this record, we conclude that defendant has failed “to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for defense counsel’s alleged failure to pursue an intoxication defense (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]).

2015Under the circumstances presented on this record, we conclude that defendant has failed “to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for defense counsel’s alleged failure to pursue an intoxication defense (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]).

1994For purposes of the dispositive analysis of the instructional issue involving the lesser-included manslaughter offenses, the intoxication instruction, although based on a thin evidentiary predicate, is deemed warranted in this case (see, People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849, 850 , citing People v Orr, 43 AD2d 836 , affd 35 NY2d 829 ; People v Farnsworth, 65 NY2d 734 , 735; see also, People v Gaines, 83 NY2d 925, 927 ; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918, 920 ; Penal Law § 15.25).

1994For purposes of the dispositive analysis of the instructional issue involving the lesser-included manslaughter offenses, the intoxication instruction, although based on a thin evidentiary predicate, is deemed warranted in this case ( see , People v Perry , 61 N.Y.2d 849, 850 , citing People v Orr , 43 AD2d 836 , affd 35 N.Y.2d 829 ; People v Farnsworth , 65 N.Y.2d 734 , 735; see also , People v Gaines , 83 N.Y.2d 925, 927 ; People v Rodriguez , 76 N.Y.2d 918, 920 ; Penal Law § 15.25).

2020Defendant's statement that he entered the victim's hotel room "looking for money from the lady" did not effectively recant his earlier statement as to intoxication and did not relieve the court of its duty to engage in an additional inquiry into defendant's understanding of the intoxication defense or the facts of the offense ( see People v Ortiz , 154 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2017] ; People v Osgood , 254 AD2d 571 [3d Dept 1998]).

2012Inasmuch as the crime of arson in the second degree requires that defendant intentionally damage a building by starting a fire (see Penal Law § 150.15), this evidence raises the possibility of an intoxication defense (see People v Osgood, 254 AD2d 571, 572 [1998]).

2009Accordingly, the defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel as a result of defense counsel’s decision not to pursue an intoxication defense (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; People v Gary, 299 AD2d at 961 ).

2002Thus, defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel as a result of defense counsel’s failure to pursue an intoxication defense or request an intoxication charge (see People v Jaworski, 296 AD2d 597 ; People v Galusha, 286 AD2d 933 , lv denied 97 NY2d 704 ; People v Keller, 175 AD2d 312, 313-314 , lv denied 78 NY2d 1128 ; see generally People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565-566 ; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 ).

2024Accordingly, County Court's refusal to provide the intoxication instruction was error, requiring reversal ( see People [*4]v Perry , 61 NY2d 849, 850 [1984]; People v Sabirov , 184 AD3d 714, 717 [2d Dept 2020]; People v Goldring , 133 AD3d 684 , 685 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 965 [2016]).

1994For purposes of the dispositive analysis of the instructional issue involving the lesser-included manslaughter offenses, the intoxication instruction, although based on a thin evidentiary predicate, is deemed warranted in this case (see, People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849, 850 , citing People v Orr, 43 AD2d 836 , affd 35 NY2d 829 ; People v Farnsworth, 65 NY2d 734 , 735; see also, People v Gaines, 83 NY2d 925, 927 ; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918, 920 ; Penal Law § 15.25).

2026"It is well settled that the failure to call a particular witness does not necessarily amount to ineffective assistance of counsel" and that "[t]his is particularly true where, as here, expert testimony was not required to prove the intoxication defense" ( People v Muller , 57 AD3d 1113, 1114 [3d Dept 2008] [citations omitted], lv denied 12 NY3d 761 [2009]; see People v King , 124 AD3d 1064, 1067 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1073 [2015]).

2018Contrary to defendant's contention, expert testimony was not required to establish an intoxication defense, and "defendant now offers little more than speculative assertions that an expert's testimony would have supported it" ( People v Muller , 57 AD3d 1113, 1114 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 761 [2009]; see People v King , 124 AD3d 1064, 1067 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1073 [2015]).

2011Likewise, given the evidence adduced at trial, we are unconvinced that counsel’s failure to pursue an intoxication defense constituted ineffective assistance (see People v Robetoy, 48 AD3d 881, 882 [2008]; People v Van Ness, 43 AD3d 553, 555 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 965 [2007]; People v Keller, 175 AD2d 312, 313-314 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1128 [1991]).

2010Nothing in the record suggests that trial counsel should have pursued an intoxication defense (see People v Robetoy, 48 AD3d 881, 882 [2008]; People v Giannattasio, 235 AD2d 548 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1093 [1997]).

2014Regardless of whether an intoxication charge would have been proper, defendant has not demonstrated the “absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct” (People v Hammond, 107 AD3d 1156, 1156 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2014Regardless of whether an intoxication charge would have been proper, defendant has not demonstrated the “absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct” (People v Hammond, 107 AD3d 1156, 1156 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2014Although defendant indicated during the plea allocution that he was intoxicated at the time of the crime, County Court satisfied its duty to inquire further by advising defendant that an issue regarding criminal intent may have been raised and confirming that defendant had discussed the intoxication defense with counsel and wanted to proceed by entering a guilty plea (see People v Mead, 64 AD3d 814, 815 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 890 [2010]; People v Moore 270 AD2d 715, 716 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 800 [2000]).

2014Although defendant indicated during the plea allocution that he was intoxicated at the time of the crime, County Court satisfied its duty to inquire further by advising defendant that an issue regarding criminal intent may have been raised and confirming that defendant had discussed the intoxication defense with counsel and wanted to proceed by entering a guilty plea (see People v Mead, 64 AD3d 814, 815 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 890 [2010]; People v Moore 270 AD2d 715, 716 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 800 [2000]).

2009As the court did not conduct any further inquiry after defendant alluded to this potential defense— which could negate the intent element of the crime—I cannot conclude that his waiver of this defense and, thus, his plea were knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Osgood, 254 AD2d 571, 572 [1998]; People v Braman, 136 AD2d 382, 384-385 [1988], lv denied 72 NY2d 911 [1988]).

1998Based on the record, we cannot ascertain whether defendant understood the existence and significance of the intoxication claim and knowingly and voluntarily waived this defense (see, People v Braman, supra, at 384-385).

2017Insofar as a defendant’s knowledge that the element of intent may be negated by the potential defense of intoxication is essential to a knowing and voluntary plea (see People v Doane, 145 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2016]) and there is no indication that defendant was aware of the intoxication defense and knowingly waived his right to present such evidence, we are persuaded that defendant has raised an issue sufficient to require a hearing (see People v Davey, 91 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2012]; People v Thomson, 279 AD2d 644, 645 [2001]).

2017Insofar as a defendant’s knowledge that the element of intent may be negated by the potential defense of intoxication is essential to a knowing and voluntary plea (see People v Doane, 145 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2016]) and there is no indication that defendant was aware of the intoxication defense and knowingly waived his right to present such evidence, we are persuaded that defendant has raised an issue sufficient to require a hearing (see People v Davey, 91 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2012]; People v Thomson, 279 AD2d 644, 645 [2001]).

2015The decision whether to pursue an intoxication defense is clearly one of strategy (see Swail v Hunt, 742 F Supp 2d 352, 366 [2010]).

2015The decision whether to pursue an intoxication defense is clearly one of strategy (see Swail v Hunt, 742 F Supp 2d 352, 366 [2010]).

2011Likewise, given the evidence adduced at trial, we are unconvinced that counsel’s failure to pursue an intoxication defense constituted ineffective assistance (see People v Robetoy, 48 AD3d 881, 882 [2008]; People v Van Ness, 43 AD3d 553, 555 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 965 [2007]; People v Keller, 175 AD2d 312, 313-314 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1128 [1991]).

2009We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to pursue an intoxication defense, inasmuch as there was “a paucity of evidence that defendant exhibited significant signs of intoxication or that his mental state was affected by alcohol” (People v Van Ness, 43 AD3d 553, 555 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 965 [2007]).

2010In any event, defense counsel raised an intoxication defense that contributed to the plea agreement reached and, given defendant’s admissions during the plea colloquy, we are satisfied that he received meaningful representation (see People v Townsend, 306 AD2d 761, 762 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 625 [2003]; People v Jaworski, 296 AD2d 597, 598 [2002]).

2005Likewise, we find no merit to defendant’s claim that his attorney’s failure to pursue an intoxication defense resulted in his guilty plea and deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Jaworski, 296 AD2d 597, 598 [2002]).

2026"It is well settled that the failure to call a particular witness does not necessarily amount to ineffective assistance of counsel" and that "[t]his is particularly true where, as here, expert testimony was not required to prove the intoxication defense" ( People v Muller , 57 AD3d 1113, 1114 [3d Dept 2008] [citations omitted], lv denied 12 NY3d 761 [2009]; see People v King , 124 AD3d 1064, 1067 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1073 [2015]).

2018Contrary to defendant's contention, expert testimony was not required to establish an intoxication defense, and "defendant now offers little more than speculative assertions that an expert's testimony would have supported it" ( People v Muller , 57 AD3d 1113, 1114 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 761 [2009]; see People v King , 124 AD3d 1064, 1067 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1073 [2015]).

2025Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid, defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to pursue an intoxication defense and to seek a mental health competency examination does not survive his guilty plea because defendant " 'failed to demonstrate that the plea bargaining process was infected by the allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of defense counsel's allegedly poor performance' " ( People v Blount , 239 AD3d 1426 , 1427 [4th Dept 2025], lv de

2025Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid, defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to pursue an intoxication defense and to seek a mental health competency examination does not survive his guilty plea because defendant " 'failed to demonstrate that the plea bargaining process was infected by the allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of defense counsel's allegedly poor performance' " ( People v Blount , 239 AD3d 1426 , 1427 [4th Dept 2025], lv de

2017Inasmuch as defendant provided little beyond the bare claim “that he was intoxicated,” County Court was correct to reject his request for an intoxication instruction (People v Gaines, 83 NY2d at 927 ; see People v Sturdevant, 74 AD3d 1491, 1493 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Maxwell, 260 AD2d 653, 653-654 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 [1999]).

2017Inasmuch as defendant provided little beyond the bare claim “that he was intoxicated,” County Court was correct to reject his request for an intoxication instruction (People v Gaines, 83 NY2d at 927 ; see People v Sturdevant, 74 AD3d 1491, 1493 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Maxwell, 260 AD2d 653, 653-654 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 [1999]).

2017Insofar as a defendant’s knowledge that the element of intent may be negated by the potential defense of intoxication is essential to a knowing and voluntary plea (see People v Doane, 145 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2016]) and there is no indication that defendant was aware of the intoxication defense and knowingly waived his right to present such evidence, we are persuaded that defendant has raised an issue sufficient to require a hearing (see People v Davey, 91 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2012]; People v Thomson, 279 AD2d 644, 645 [2001]).

2017Insofar as a defendant’s knowledge that the element of intent may be negated by the potential defense of intoxication is essential to a knowing and voluntary plea (see People v Doane, 145 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2016]) and there is no indication that defendant was aware of the intoxication defense and knowingly waived his right to present such evidence, we are persuaded that defendant has raised an issue sufficient to require a hearing (see People v Davey, 91 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2012]; People v Thomson, 279 AD2d 644, 645 [2001]).

2017Insofar as a defendant’s knowledge that the element of intent may be negated by the potential defense of intoxication is essential to a knowing and voluntary plea (see People v Doane, 145 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2016]) and there is no indication that defendant was aware of the intoxication defense and knowingly waived his right to present such evidence, we are persuaded that defendant has raised an issue sufficient to require a hearing (see People v Davey, 91 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2012]; People v Thomson, 279 AD2d 644, 645 [2001]).

2017Insofar as a defendant’s knowledge that the element of intent may be negated by the potential defense of intoxication is essential to a knowing and voluntary plea (see People v Doane, 145 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2016]) and there is no indication that defendant was aware of the intoxication defense and knowingly waived his right to present such evidence, we are persuaded that defendant has raised an issue sufficient to require a hearing (see People v Davey, 91 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2012]; People v Thomson, 279 AD2d 644, 645 [2001]).

2017Inasmuch as defendant provided little beyond the bare claim “that he was intoxicated,” County Court was correct to reject his request for an intoxication instruction (People v Gaines, 83 NY2d at 927 ; see People v Sturdevant, 74 AD3d 1491, 1493 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Maxwell, 260 AD2d 653, 653-654 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 [1999]).

2017Inasmuch as defendant provided little beyond the bare claim “that he was intoxicated,” County Court was correct to reject his request for an intoxication instruction (People v Gaines, 83 NY2d at 927 ; see People v Sturdevant, 74 AD3d 1491, 1493 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People v Maxwell, 260 AD2d 653, 653-654 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1004 [1999]).

2022Further, defense counsel's failure to object to the justification defense instructions or ask for a jury charge on the intoxication defense did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, since "an attorney is not deemed ineffective for failing to pursue an argument that had little or no chance of success" ( People v Ennis , 11 NY3d 403, 415 ; see People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 ; People v Naqvi , 132 AD3d 779, 781 ) or for failing to make a futile objection ( see People v Torres , 185 AD3d at 971 ), and it is clear from the record as a whole that the defendant received meaningful repre

1992Thus, it cannot be said that trial counsel did not provide "meaningful representation” (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 ) because he chose to attack the credibility of the People’s witnesses rather than pursue an intoxication defense.

2021The court thereafter affirmed with both the defendant and his attorney that he was aware of an intoxication defense and that he was choosing not to pursue this defense ( see People v White , 164 AD3d 959 , 960; People v Sterling , 57 AD3d 1110, 1112 ).

2009During the plea colloquy, in response to the court’s question whether defendant had discussed any possible defenses with his attorney, including intoxication, defendant replied in the affirmative but also stated, “I was drinking.” Defendant’s statement raised the possibility of an intoxication defense, obligating the court to inquire whether defendant was aware of the defense and be sure that he was knowingly and intelligently waiving it (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Sterling, 57 AD3d 1110, 1112 [2008]).

2011Likewise, given the evidence adduced at trial, we are unconvinced that counsel’s failure to pursue an intoxication defense constituted ineffective assistance (see People v Robetoy, 48 AD3d 881, 882 [2008]; People v Van Ness, 43 AD3d 553, 555 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 965 [2007]; People v Keller, 175 AD2d 312, 313-314 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1128 [1991]).

2002Likewise, we find no merit to defendant’s claim that his attorney’s failure to pursue an intoxication defense deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Keller, 175 AD2d 312 , lv denied 78 NY2d 1128 ; cf., People v Thomson, 279 AD2d 644 ; People v Norfleet, 267 AD2d 881 , lv denied 95 NY2d 801 ).