People v. Tao Li

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tao Li

280 A.D.2d 623, 720 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1629

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 623 (People v. Tao Li) 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. Tao Li, 280 A.D.2d 623, 720 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered February 18, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not decline to rule on whether the People could cross-examine him regarding his statement to a police officer that he was on parole. The trial court specifically ruled that the People could cross-examine the defendant as to that statement.

The defendant received the effective assistance of trial 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). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Smith, 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 (Flaherty, J.), rendered February 18, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not decline to rule on whether the People could cross-examine him regarding his statement to a police officer that he was on parole. The trial court specifically ruled that the People could cross-examine the defendant as to that statement.

The defendant received the effective assistance of trial 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). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 623, 720 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tao-li-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack