People v. Cabo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cabo

228 A.D.2d 689, 646 N.Y.2d 11, 646 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7376

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 689 (People v. Cabo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cabo, 228 A.D.2d 689, 646 N.Y.2d 11, 646 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Although his trial counsel failed to make a motion to suppress the physical evidence, it is settled that "a failure to move to suppress physical evidence does not, in and of itself, establish the ineffective assistance of counsel” (People v Taylor, 157 AD2d 617, 618; see also, People v De Mauro, 48 NY2d 892; People v Allen, 193 AD2d 609, lv denied 82 NY2d 890). Here, the record indicates that there was no colorable basis for a suppression motion (see, People v Garcia, 75 NY2d 973; People v Allen, supra, at 610; People v Sullivan, 153 AD2d 223, 231). Because the defendant failed to make a showing that defense counsel had no legitimate explanation for failing to make the suppression motion, it should "be presumed that counsel acted in a competent manner and exercised professional judgment in not pursuing” such a motion (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; People v Allen, supra). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Although his trial counsel failed to make a motion to suppress the physical evidence, it is settled that "a failure to move to suppress physical evidence does not, in and of itself, establish the ineffective assistance of counsel” (People v Taylor, 157 AD2d 617, 618; see also, People v De Mauro, 48 NY2d 892; People v Allen, 193 AD2d 609, lv denied 82 NY2d 890). Here, the record indicates that there was no colorable basis for a suppression motion (see, People v Garcia, 75 NY2d 973; People v Allen, supra, at 610; People v Sullivan, 153 AD2d 223, 231). Because the defendant failed to make a showing that defense counsel had no legitimate explanation for failing to make the suppression motion, it should "be presumed that counsel acted in a competent manner and exercised professional judgment in not pursuing” such a motion (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; People v Allen, supra). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 689, 646 N.Y.2d 11, 646 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cabo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack