merits of the ineffectiveness claim in New York

2016Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal., In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

2016Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal., In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

2016Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal., In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

2016Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal., In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

2020Although defendant made a CPL 440.10 motion that was denied, he failed to obtain permission from this Court to appeal, and therefore, "the merits of the ineffectiveness claim are not properly before us" ( People v Baron , 133 AD3d at 518; see also People v Polanco , 121 AD3d at 437 ).

2015Although defendant made a CPL 440.10 motion that was denied, he failed to obtain permission from this Court to appeal; accordingly, the merits of the ineffectiveness claim are not properly before us (see People v Polanco, 121 AD3d 436, 437 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1221 [2015]).

2016Defendant has not shown that the motion practice conducted by his attorneys was objectively unreasonable, or-that it resulted in unfairness or otherwise caused defendant any prejudice (see People v Carver, 27 NY3d 418, 420-421 [2016]).

2016Defendant has not shown that the motion practice conducted by his attorneys was objectively unreasonable, or-that it resulted in unfairness or otherwise caused defendant any prejudice (see People v Carver, 27 NY3d 418, 420-421 [2016]).

2020Although defendant made a CPL 440.10 motion that was denied, he failed to obtain permission from this Court to appeal, and therefore, "the merits of the ineffectiveness claim are not properly before us" ( People v Baron , 133 AD3d at 518; see also People v Polanco , 121 AD3d at 437 ).

2020In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards ( see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; People v Ford , 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668 [1984]).

2018Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal ( see People v Peque , 22 NY3d 168, 202-203 [2013]).

2018Defendant's constitutional challenge to his sentence is unpreserved ( see People v Pena , 28 NY3d 727, 730 [2017]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.