strategic reason defense in New York

14 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (15)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Beneventogreen ny · 1998 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2002–2018 2 sentences 2018With respect to defendant's claim that defense counsel was ineffective in agreeing to a certain stipulation on the record, defendant failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel's conduct ( see generally People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Alexander , 109 AD3d 1083, 1085 [4th Dept 2013]). 2018With respect to defendant's claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to serve a notice of a defense of mental disease or defect, defendant failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel's failure to do so ( see generally Benevento , 91 NY2d at 712 ).	3	5
People v. Concepciongreen ny · 2011 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Thus, in our view, we cannot affirm the instant order on the ground that the evidence was admissible in the first instance (see CPL 470.15 [1]; People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 196 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998]). 2014Thus, in our view, we cannot affirm the instant order on the ground that the evidence was admissible in the first instance (see CPL 470.15 [1]; People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 196 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998]).	2	3
People v. LaFontainegreen ny · 1998 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Thus, in our view, we cannot affirm the instant order on the ground that the evidence was admissible in the first instance (see CPL 470.15 [1]; People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 196 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998]). 2014Thus, in our view, we cannot affirm the instant order on the ground that the evidence was admissible in the first instance (see CPL 470.15 [1]; People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 196 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998]).	2	3
People v. Crumpgreen nyappdiv · 2010 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Inasmuch as the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify, defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of that testimony cannot be considered ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]; People v Crump, 77 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]). 2013Inasmuch as the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify, defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of that testimony cannot be considered ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]; People v Crump, 77 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]).	2	3
People v. Greengreen nyappdiv · 1985 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to submit the two murder charges, i.e., for intentional murder and depraved indifference murder, in the alternative was not raised in his CPL 440.10 motion and therefore is not properly before us (see generally People v Brown, 217 AD2d 797, 798 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 872 [1995]; People v Green, 111 AD2d 349, 349 [1985]). 2013Defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to submit the two murder charges, i.e., for intentional murder and depraved indifference murder, in the alternative was not raised in his CPL 440.10 motion and therefore is not properly before us (see generally People v Brown, 217 AD2d 797, 798 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 872 [1995]; People v Green, 111 AD2d 349, 349 [1985]).	2	3
People v. Stultzgreen ny · 2004 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Inasmuch as the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify, defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of that testimony cannot be considered ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]; People v Crump, 77 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]). 2013Inasmuch as the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify, defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of that testimony cannot be considered ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]; People v Crump, 77 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]).	2	3
People v. Browngreen nyappdiv · 1995 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to submit the two murder charges, i.e., for intentional murder and depraved indifference murder, in the alternative was not raised in his CPL 440.10 motion and therefore is not properly before us (see generally People v Brown, 217 AD2d 797, 798 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 872 [1995]; People v Green, 111 AD2d 349, 349 [1985]). 2013Defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to submit the two murder charges, i.e., for intentional murder and depraved indifference murder, in the alternative was not raised in his CPL 440.10 motion and therefore is not properly before us (see generally People v Brown, 217 AD2d 797, 798 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 872 [1995]; People v Green, 111 AD2d 349, 349 [1985]).	2	3
People v. Rosadogreen nyappdiv · 2004 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Defendant has therefore failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel’s failure to challenge the testimony of the Medical Examiner based on records in defense counsel’s possession (see People v Rosado, 13 AD3d 902, 903-904 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 835 [2005]). 2013Defendant has therefore failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel’s failure to challenge the testimony of the Medical Examiner based on records in defense counsel’s possession (see People v Rosado, 13 AD3d 902, 903-904 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 835 [2005]).	2	3
People v. Turckgreen nyappdiv · 2003 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Defendant failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel’s failure to exercise any challenges during voir dire (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Turck, 305 AD2d 1072, 1073 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 566 [2003]). 2013Defendant failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel’s failure to exercise any challenges during voir dire (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Turck, 305 AD2d 1072, 1073 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 566 [2003]).	2	3
People v. Cabangreen ny · 2005 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020Defendant's additional claims — related to defense counsel's failure to make certain motions and objections — are also lacking in merit as "[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of . . . counsel arising from counsel's failure to make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success" ( People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Kelsey , 174 AD3d at 965).	1	1
People v. Umanagreen nyappdiv · 2016 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020As such, defendant failed to show absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel's conduct ( see People v Lindsey , 172 AD3d 1764 , 1767 [2019]; People v Umana , 143 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 1037 [2017]; People v Colburn , 123 AD3d 1292, 1297 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 950 [2015]).	1	1
People v. Colburngreen nyappdiv · 2014 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020As such, defendant failed to show absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel's conduct ( see People v Lindsey , 172 AD3d 1764 , 1767 [2019]; People v Umana , 143 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 1037 [2017]; People v Colburn , 123 AD3d 1292, 1297 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 950 [2015]).	1	1
People v. Alexandergreen nyappdiv · 2013 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018With respect to defendant's claim that defense counsel was ineffective in agreeing to a certain stipulation on the record, defendant failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel's conduct ( see generally People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Alexander , 109 AD3d 1083, 1085 [4th Dept 2013]).	1	1
People v. Danielsongreen ny · 2007 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).	1	1
People v. Bleakleygreen ny · 1987 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Town of Parma v. Lynchesky green ny · 2004 2 sentences 2013Inasmuch as the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify, defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of that testimony cannot be considered ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]; People v Crump, 77 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]). 2013Inasmuch as the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify, defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of that testimony cannot be considered ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]; People v Crump, 77 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]).	3	2013–2013
People v. Rodriguez green ny · 2005 2 sentences 2013Defendant has therefore failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel’s failure to challenge the testimony of the Medical Examiner based on records in defense counsel’s possession (see People v Rosado, 13 AD3d 902, 903-904 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 835 [2005]). 2013Defendant has therefore failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel’s failure to challenge the testimony of the Medical Examiner based on records in defense counsel’s possession (see People v Rosado, 13 AD3d 902, 903-904 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 835 [2005]).	3	2013–2013
People v. Johnson neutral nyappdiv · 2011 1 sentence 2024Likewise, defense counsel's failure to request a jury charge regarding the voluntariness of the defendant's statements to the police did not, under the circumstances, deprive the defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Johnson , 81 AD3d 745, 745 ).	1	2024–2024
People v. Morrison green ny · 2018 1 sentence 2022The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to provide a meaningful response to a jury note concerning the justification defense is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Meyers , 33 NY3d 1018 , 1022; People v Morrison , 32 NY3d 951, 952 ; People v Mack , 27 NY3d 534, 537 ).	1	2022–2022
People v. Thorpe green nyappdiv · 2016 1 sentence 2022The defendant failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel not requesting an accomplice charge pursuant to CPL 60.22 and, therefore, contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to request one ( see People v Thorpe , 141 AD3d 927 ; People v Anderson , 120 AD3d 1549 ).	1	2022–2022
People v. Anderson green nyappdiv · 2014 1 sentence 2022The defendant failed to establish the absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel not requesting an accomplice charge pursuant to CPL 60.22 and, therefore, contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to request one ( see People v Thorpe , 141 AD3d 927 ; People v Anderson , 120 AD3d 1549 ).	1	2022–2022
The People v. Terrance L. Mack green ny · 2016 1 sentence 2022The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to provide a meaningful response to a jury note concerning the justification defense is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Meyers , 33 NY3d 1018 , 1022; People v Morrison , 32 NY3d 951, 952 ; People v Mack , 27 NY3d 534, 537 ).	1	2022–2022
People v. Silva green ny · 2017 1 sentence 2020As such, defendant failed to show absence of a strategic reason for defense counsel's conduct ( see People v Lindsey , 172 AD3d 1764 , 1767 [2019]; People v Umana , 143 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 1037 [2017]; People v Colburn , 123 AD3d 1292, 1297 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 950 [2015]).	1	2020–2020

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NY § N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25 (4) NY § N.Y. Penal Law § 130.65 (3) NY § N.Y. Penal Law § 130.75 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 14 (2002–2024) MI 2 (2017–2017)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check