People v. Clarida

2025 NY Slip Op 06034

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: Ind No. 2858/17; Appeal No. 5081-5081A; Case No. 2019-04061 2024-01331
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Clarida (2025 NY Slip Op 06034)

People v Clarida

2025 NY Slip Op 06034

Decided on October 30, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 30, 2025
Before: Moulton, J.P., Gesmer, González, Higgitt, JJ.

Ind No. 2858/17|Appeal No. 5081-5081A|Case No. 2019-04061 2024-01331|

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Raymond L. Clarida, Defendant-Appellant.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jane Merrill of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Noah J. Chamoy of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David L. Lewis, J.), rendered June 10, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and two counts of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of fifteen years, and order, same court (Jeffery Zimmerman, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2023, which summarily denied defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h), unanimously affirmed.

The record supports the motion court's findings in which it rejected defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668 [1984]). Faced with overwhelming evidence, counsel crafted a defense, which included a claim that defendant was intoxicated, and that he lacked the requisite intent to commit attempted murder and the other crimes with which he was charged (see People v Lane , 60 NY2d 748, 750 [1983]). Under all the circumstances, the motion court properly rejected defendant's claim that counsel failed to review the evidence or research the applicable law.

We perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 30, 2025