People v. Lydon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lydon

134 A.D.2d 287, 520 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50472

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 287 (People v. Lydon) 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. Lydon, 134 A.D.2d 287, 520 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon J.), rendered October 21, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the minimal evidence of the defendant’s intoxication, the decision of his trial counsel to forego an intoxication defense appears to have been a reasonable trial tactic. Thus, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Barrentine, 112 AD2d 440).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon J.), rendered October 21, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the minimal evidence of the defendant’s intoxication, the decision of his trial counsel to forego an intoxication defense appears to have been a reasonable trial tactic. Thus, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Barrentine, 112 AD2d 440).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 287, 520 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lydon-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack