People v. Seeramsingh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Seeramsingh

279 A.D.2d 486, 719 N.Y.S.2d 587, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 222

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 8, 2001·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered September 16, 1999, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the 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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to his contention, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Sinclair, 266 AD2d 482). “Mere losing tactics are not to be confused with ineffectiveness, and to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, proof of less than meaningful representation is required, rather than disagreement with counsel’s strategies and tactics” (People v Sinclair, supra, at 482).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 (McGann, J.), rendered September 16, 1999, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the 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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to his contention, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Sinclair, 266 AD2d 482). “Mere losing tactics are not to be confused with ineffectiveness, and to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, proof of less than meaningful representation is required, rather than disagreement with counsel’s strategies and tactics” (People v Sinclair, supra, at 482).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

People v. Seeramsingh, 279 A.D.2d 486, 719 N.Y.S.2d 587, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

279 A.D.2d 486 (People v. Seeramsingh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related