People v. Ott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ott

30 A.D.3d 1081, 815 N.Y.S.2d 864

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

DecidedJune 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 1081 (People v. Ott) 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. Ott, 30 A.D.3d 1081, 815 N.Y.S.2d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered June 24, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [5] [ii]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, adequately cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, and gave effective opening and closing statements, and defendant was acquitted of the two most serious crimes charged in the indictment. The record thus establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,147 [1981]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Green and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered June 24, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [5] [ii]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, adequately cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, and gave effective opening and closing statements, and defendant was acquitted of the two most serious crimes charged in the indictment. The record thus establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,147 [1981]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Green and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 1081, 815 N.Y.S.2d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ott-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack