People v. Pinder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pinder

199 A.D.2d 544, 608 N.Y.S.2d 98

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 544 (People v. Pinder) 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. Pinder, 199 A.D.2d 544, 608 N.Y.S.2d 98 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 14, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a non-jury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved for appellate review because his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find no support in the record for the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated upon his allegation that his prior counsel failed to inform him of the date of representment of the case to the Grand Jury, thus ignoring his desire to testify. In support of this claim the defendant merely submitted an affirmation of his subsequent retained counsel who did not have personal knowledge as to whether the defendant’s prior counsel properly consulted with the [545]*545defendant. Thus, the affirmation was insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden of establishing that his rights pursuant to CPL 190.50 were violated (see, People v Fleming, 196 AD2d 551; People v Cipolla, 171 AD2d 557). Even assuming the truth of the defendant’s allegations, his counsel’s failure to inform him of the date of representment would not, standing alone, amount to a denial of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; cf., People v Turner, 187 AD2d 469). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Santucci, 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 (Rotker, J.), rendered July 14, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a non-jury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved for appellate review because his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find no support in the record for the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated upon his allegation that his prior counsel failed to inform him of the date of representment of the case to the Grand Jury, thus ignoring his desire to testify. In support of this claim the defendant merely submitted an affirmation of his subsequent retained counsel who did not have personal knowledge as to whether the defendant’s prior counsel properly consulted with the [545]*545defendant. Thus, the affirmation was insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden of establishing that his rights pursuant to CPL 190.50 were violated (see, People v Fleming, 196 AD2d 551; People v Cipolla, 171 AD2d 557). Even assuming the truth of the defendant’s allegations, his counsel’s failure to inform him of the date of representment would not, standing alone, amount to a denial of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; cf., People v Turner, 187 AD2d 469). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 544, 608 N.Y.S.2d 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pinder-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack