People v. Nowicki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nowicki

49 A.D.3d 666, 852 N.Y.S.2d 783

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 666 (People v. Nowicki) 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. Nowicki, 49 A.D.3d 666, 852 N.Y.S.2d 783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The record demonstrates that defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, delivered a cogent opening and closing statement, and [667]*667presented a plausible defense (see People v Dolan, 2 AD3d 745, 747 [2003]; People v Groonell, 256 AD2d 356, 357 [1998]). The specific errors of defense counsel raised by the defendant either reflect the defendant’s disagreement with reasonable trial tactics and strategies, or are not so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Rose, 307 AD2d 270, 271 [2003]). Thus, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The record demonstrates that defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, delivered a cogent opening and closing statement, and [667]*667presented a plausible defense (see People v Dolan, 2 AD3d 745, 747 [2003]; People v Groonell, 256 AD2d 356, 357 [1998]). The specific errors of defense counsel raised by the defendant either reflect the defendant’s disagreement with reasonable trial tactics and strategies, or are not so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Rose, 307 AD2d 270, 271 [2003]). Thus, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 666, 852 N.Y.S.2d 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nowicki-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack