People v. Rodriguez

31 N.Y.3d 1067, 2018 NY Slip Op 04031

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 7, 2018
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Rodriguez (2018 NY Slip Op 04031)

People v Rodriguez

2018 NY Slip Op 04031 [31 NY3d 1067]

June 7, 2018

Court of Appeals

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, July 25, 2018

[*1]

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Rodriguez, Appellant.

Decided June 7, 2018

People v Rodriguez, 153 AD3d 235, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Powers & Santola, LLP, Albany (Michael J. Hutter of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Sheila L. Bautista of counsel), for respondent.

{**31 NY3d at 1068} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacks merit. Even assuming that counsel failed to assert a meritorious Confrontation Clause challenge, the alleged omission does not "involve an issue that [was] so clear-cut and dispositive that no reasonable defense counsel would have failed to assert it," and defendant has not demonstrated on the record "that the decision to forgo the contention could not have been grounded in a legitimate trial strategy" (People v McGee, 20 NY3d 513, 518 [2013]; see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; cf. People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 481 [2005]).

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.