People v. Kollock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kollock

2017 NY Slip Op 5463, 152 A.D.3d 546, 54 N.Y.S.3d 867

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2017

Docket2015-03621

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5463 (People v. Kollock) 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. Kollock, 2017 NY Slip Op 5463, 152 A.D.3d 546, 54 N.Y.S.3d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cyrulnik, J.), rendered April 20, 2015, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and aggravated criminal contempt, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The charges against the defendant arose from an incident in which he punched his former girlfriend (hereinafter the complainant) in the eye while she was wearing eyeglasses, causing her to sustain injury to her eyelid. After a nonjury trial, the defendant was acquitted of several charges in the indictment, and convicted of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and aggravated criminal contempt. On appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.

In reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court must examine the trial as a whole to determine whether the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 530 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 189 [1994]). “So long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Mere disagreement with strategies and tactics that failed does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v King, 27 NY3d 147, 159 [2016]; People v Schulz, 4 NY3d at 531; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712; People v Benn, 68 NY2d 941, 942 [1986]).

Viewed as a whole, the record reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation at trial (see People v *547 Carncross, 14 NY3d 319, 331 [2010]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d at 151-152; People v Naqvi, 132 AD3d 779, 781 [2015]; People v Lutchman, 121 AD3d 716, 717 [2014]; People v Hall, 68 AD3d 1133 [2009]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Connolly, 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, Kings County (Cyrulnik, J.), rendered April 20, 2015, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and aggravated criminal contempt, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The charges against the defendant arose from an incident in which he punched his former girlfriend (hereinafter the complainant) in the eye while she was wearing eyeglasses, causing her to sustain injury to her eyelid. After a nonjury trial, the defendant was acquitted of several charges in the indictment, and convicted of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and aggravated criminal contempt. On appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.

In reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court must examine the trial as a whole to determine whether the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 530 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 189 [1994]). “So long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Mere disagreement with strategies and tactics that failed does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v King, 27 NY3d 147, 159 [2016]; People v Schulz, 4 NY3d at 531; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712; People v Benn, 68 NY2d 941, 942 [1986]).

Viewed as a whole, the record reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation at trial (see People v *547 Carncross, 14 NY3d 319, 331 [2010]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d at 151-152; People v Naqvi, 132 AD3d 779, 781 [2015]; People v Lutchman, 121 AD3d 716, 717 [2014]; People v Hall, 68 AD3d 1133 [2009]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5463, 152 A.D.3d 546, 54 N.Y.S.3d 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kollock-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack