People v. De Quaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. De Quaro

121 A.D.2d 559, 503 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58542

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

DecidedJune 16, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 559 (People v. De Quaro) 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. De Quaro, 121 A.D.2d 559, 503 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered May 5, 1982, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[560]*560Judgment affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. A review of the record does not show any facts which would warrant a finding that the conduct of defense counsel fell below the professional standard of reasonableness or that the defendant was prejudiced thereby. The utilization of a reasonable trial strategy, even though unsuccessful, does not render counsel ineffective (see, People v Dudley, 110 AD2d 652). We conclude, therefore, that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered May 5, 1982, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[560]*560Judgment affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. A review of the record does not show any facts which would warrant a finding that the conduct of defense counsel fell below the professional standard of reasonableness or that the defendant was prejudiced thereby. The utilization of a reasonable trial strategy, even though unsuccessful, does not render counsel ineffective (see, People v Dudley, 110 AD2d 652). We conclude, therefore, that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 559, 503 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-quaro-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack