People v. Ryan

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Ryan

682 N.E.2d 977, 90 N.Y.2d 822, 660 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 1353

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 682 N.E.2d 977 (People v. Ryan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ryan, 682 N.E.2d 977, 90 N.Y.2d 822, 660 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 1353 (N.Y. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10) and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2] [a]) based upon the defendant’s striking and seriously injuring a pedestrian with the car he was driving. The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction, one Justice dissenting (229 AD2d 623).

Upon examining all of the circumstances of this case, "viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation,” we conclude that defendant was not deprived of meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Defense counsel cross-examined key prosecution witnesses, presented defendant’s testimony in support of an alibi defense, and gave a detailed summation highlighting potential infirmities in the People’s evidence. Moreover, when viewed in light of the trial as a whole, the actions of defense counsel of which defendant *824 now complains could be attributed to tactical trial decisions. Thus, defendant has failed to establish that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; People v Baldi, supra).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining grounds for seeking a new trial and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10) and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2] [a]) based upon the defendant’s striking and seriously injuring a pedestrian with the car he was driving. The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction, one Justice dissenting (229 AD2d 623).

Upon examining all of the circumstances of this case, "viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation,” we conclude that defendant was not deprived of meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Defense counsel cross-examined key prosecution witnesses, presented defendant’s testimony in support of an alibi defense, and gave a detailed summation highlighting potential infirmities in the People’s evidence. Moreover, when viewed in light of the trial as a whole, the actions of defense counsel of which defendant *824 now complains could be attributed to tactical trial decisions. Thus, defendant has failed to establish that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; People v Baldi, supra).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining grounds for seeking a new trial and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

682 N.E.2d 977, 90 N.Y.2d 822, 660 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 1353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ryan-ny-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack