record establishes defense in New York

2024Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent ( see People v Hawkins , 224 AD3d 1219 , 1219 [4th Dept 2024]; see generally People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 559-564 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]).

2019The record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary ( see People v Bryant , 28 NY3d 1094, 1096 [2016]; People v Colon , 122 AD3d 1309 , 1309 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1200 [2015]), and the valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]).

2023Here, the record establishes that defense counsel's decision not to call defendant's aunts in support of an alibi defense premised on defendant's purported presence at another location at the time of the incident, which the People had already contradicted with an analysis of defendant's cell phone data, " 'was a matter of trial strategy and cannot be characterized as ineffective assistance of counsel' " ( Atkins , 107 AD3d at 1465 ; see People v Villone , 138 AD2d 971, 971 [4th Dept 1988], lv denied 72 NY2d 913 [1988]; see also People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]) .

2019Contrary to defendant's assertion, the record establishes that defense counsel, among other things, made appropriate pretrial motions, effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses in conjunction with the codefendant's attorney, lodged appropriate objections, introduced evidence in favor of defendant, and made compelling opening and closing statements, thereby mounting a cogent, albeit unsuccessful, defense premised largely upon the argument that the victim had knowingly approved of the financial dealings as acts of generosity toward defendant and the codefendant based on the victim's clos

2024Here, the record establishes that defense counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US at 687 ) and that counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 155 ; People v Benevento , 91 NY2d at 714 ).

2021Here, the record establishes that defense counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US at 687 ), and that defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 155 ; People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 714 ). "'A defendant is not denied effective assistance of trial counsel merely because counsel does not make a[n] argument that has little or no chance of success'" ( People v Bernardez , 85 AD3d 936, 937 , quoting People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 ).

2017Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and we conclude that the valid waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and we conclude that the valid waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2006Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see generally People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]).

2000Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see, People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833 ).

2017Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and we conclude that the valid waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and we conclude that the valid waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

2014Defendant failed to show the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s waiver of the Huntley and Wade hearings and, indeed, the record establishes that defense counsel waived those hearings in exchange for early discovery of Rosario material (see People v Sinkler, 112 AD3d 1359, 1361 [2013]; People v Jurjens, 291 AD2d 839, 840 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 652 [2002]; see generally People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]).

2014Defendant failed to show the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s waiver of the Huntley and Wade hearings and, indeed, the record establishes that defense counsel waived those hearings in exchange for early discovery of Rosario material (see People v Sinkler, 112 AD3d 1359, 1361 [2013]; People v Jurjens, 291 AD2d 839, 840 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 652 [2002]; see generally People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]).

2026The record establishes that defense counsel, on cross-examination of the expert, elicited acknowledgments that the expert "could give no evidence with respect to the ultimate issue of the case, i.e., defendant's guilt" ( Young , 206 AD3d at 1633 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and defendant's "simple disagreement with strategies, tactics or the scope of possible cross-examination, weighed long after the trial, does not suffice" to demonstrate that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( People v Flores , 84 NY2d 184, 187 [1994]; see Young , 206 AD3d at 1633).

2007The record establishes that defense counsel pursued a credible trial strategy with respect to the evidence linking defendant to the crimes, based on County Court’s pretrial rulings, and we conclude that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187 [1994]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

2018We conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses our review of defendant's challenges in his main brief to County Court's adverse suppression ruling ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 342 [2015]; People v Kemp , 94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]).

2018While defendant never confirmed on the record that he had read and reviewed the written waiver of appeal with counsel, which is the better practice, we find that, considering the circumstances surrounding the waiver and defendant's experience, the record establishes that the waiver of appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent ( see People v Sanders , 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]; People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Nichols , 155 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2017]; People v Empey , 144 AD3d 1201, 1202-1203 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 144 [2017]).

2010Contrary to the further contention of defendant in each appeal, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1055-1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]).

2010Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Grimes, 53 AD3d 1055, 1055-1056 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]).

2003Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736 ; People v Burse, 295 AD2d 968, 969 , lv denied 98 NY2d 709 ), and that waiver encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 ).

2003Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736 [1998]; People v Burse, 295 AD2d 968, 969 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 709 [2002]), and that waiver encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]).

2014The record establishes that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Berroa, 99 NY2d 134, 138 [2002]; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Negron, 112 AD3d 741 [2013]).

2014The record establishes that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Berroa, 99 NY2d 134, 138 [2002]; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Negron, 112 AD3d 741 [2013]).

2021Here, the record establishes that defense counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US at 687 ), and that defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 155 ; People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 714 ). "'A defendant is not denied effective assistance of trial counsel merely because counsel does not make a[n] argument that has little or no chance of success'" ( People v Bernardez , 85 AD3d 936, 937 , quoting People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 ).

2014Moreover, defendant failed to show that those hearings would have been successful (see generally People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004], rearg denied 3 NY3d 702 [2004]).

2024Here, the record establishes that defense counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US at 687 ) and that counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 155 ; People v Benevento , 91 NY2d at 714 ).

2021Here, the record establishes that defense counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US at 687 ), and that defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 155 ; People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 714 ). "'A defendant is not denied effective assistance of trial counsel merely because counsel does not make a[n] argument that has little or no chance of success'" ( People v Bernardez , 85 AD3d 936, 937 , quoting People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 ).

2012Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Aguayo, 37 AD3d 1081, 1081 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 981 [2007]; People v Peterson, 35 AD3d 1195 , 1196 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 926 [2007]).

2012Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Aguayo, 37 AD3d 1081, 1081 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 981 [2007]; People v Peterson, 35 AD3d 1195 , 1196 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 926 [2007]).

2015Defense counsel “was under no obligation to amplify defendant’s unsupported assertions” (People v Castro, 242 AD2d 445, 445 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 1010 [1997]), and the record establishes that defense counsel’s statements regarding the motion were not adverse to defendant (see People v Wester, 82 AD3d 1677, 1678 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011]).

2015Defense counsel “was under no obligation to amplify defendant’s unsupported assertions” (People v Castro, 242 AD2d 445, 445 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 1010 [1997]), and the record establishes that defense counsel’s statements regarding the motion were not adverse to defendant (see People v Wester, 82 AD3d 1677, 1678 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011]).

2012Contrary to defendant’s contention that defense counsel did not engage in an examination of prospective jurors, the record establishes that defense counsel in fact questioned each of the three panels of prospective jurors (cf. People v Bell, 48 NY2d 933, 934 [1979], rearg denied 49 NY2d 802 [1980]).

2012Contrary to defendant’s contention that defense counsel did not engage in an examination of prospective jurors, the record establishes that defense counsel in fact questioned each of the three panels of prospective jurors (cf. People v Bell, 48 NY2d 933, 934 [1979], rearg denied 49 NY2d 802 [1980]).

2024Any deficiency by the court in ascertaining on the record defendant's understanding of the contents of the written waiver ( see [*2]Thomas , 34 NY3d at 563, 566; People v Bradshaw , 18 NY3d 257, 266-267 [2011]; People v Callahan , 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]) is of no moment where, as here, the oral waiver was adequate ( see Lopez , 6 NY3d at 257 ; People v Witherow , 203 AD3d 1595 , 1595-1596 [4th Dept 2022]; People v Thomas , 178 AD3d 1461 , 1461 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 945 [2020]; People v Smith , 164 AD3d 1621 , 1621 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1177 [2019]).

1993Memorandum: The record establishes that the waiver by defendant of his right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 ; People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909 ; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ).

2023The record also establishes that, upon investigation, defense counsel discovered that the customer would not be able to provide exculpatory testimony, and we thus conclude that "[defense c]ounsel's decision not to call [that] witness, whose testimony he assessed as weak, was a strategic legal decision which does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel" ( People v Smith , 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]).

2021Instead, the record establishes that defense counsel sufficiently investigated the facts and had strategic and legitimate reasons for declining to call the prospective witnesses, including reasonable concerns about the admissibility of portions of the proposed testimony, the inconsistent accounts of the subject events offered by the codefendant passenger and the possibility that his testimony would be inculpatory, and the weakness of the proposed testimony arising from credibility problems with each of the prospective witnesses ( see People v Smith , 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]; People v Wheeler ,

2020Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that defense counsel conducted an adequate cross-examination of a certain prosecution witness ( see generally People v Alexander , 109 AD3d 1083, 1085 [4th Dept 2013]).

2016Indeed, the record establishes that defense counsel made a clear and cogent opening statement directed at the credibility of the witnesses and the requirement that the People prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, lodged appropriate objections, conducted meaningful cross-examination of the witnesses that raised some inconsistencies in their testimony and attempted to cast doubt on their veracity, and presented a closing argument questioning the credibility of the People’s witnesses and arguing that the victims’ testimony was too vague to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasona

2017Although he remained at the counsel table while the court, the police witness and counsel listened to a dispatch recording during cross-examination of the police witness, the record establishes that defense counsel explicitly waived defendant’s presence “in open court while defendant was present,” after the court had stated on the record that the only means by which to hear the recording was on the court clerk’s computer (People v Taylor, 136 AD3d 1331, 1332 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1075 [2016]).

2017Although he remained at the counsel table while the court, the police witness and counsel listened to a dispatch recording during cross-examination of the police witness, the record establishes that defense counsel explicitly waived defendant’s presence “in open court while defendant was present,” after the court had stated on the record that the only means by which to hear the recording was on the court clerk’s computer (People v Taylor, 136 AD3d 1331, 1332 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1075 [2016]).

2016Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the record establishes that the waiver of the right to appeal was “ ‘intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case’ ” (People v Fisher, 94 AD3d 1435, 1435 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 973 [2012]).

2016Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the record establishes that the waiver of the right to appeal was “ ‘intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case’ ” (People v Fisher, 94 AD3d 1435, 1435 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 973 [2012]).