From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Conroy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 21, 2021
196 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

2010–05972, 2010–05973 Ind. Nos. 3032–08, 236–09

07-21-2021

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jeffrey CONROY, appellant.

Jeffrey Conroy, Dannemora, NY, appellant pro se. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent. Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), former appellate counsel.


Jeffrey Conroy, Dannemora, NY, appellant pro se.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), former appellate counsel.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated January 30, 2013 ( People v. Conroy, 102 A.D.3d 979, 958 N.Y.S.2d 224 ), affirming two judgments of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, both rendered May 26, 2010.

ORDERED that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 ; People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883 ).

MASTRO, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Conroy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 21, 2021
196 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

People v. Conroy

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jeffrey CONROY, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jul 21, 2021

Citations

196 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
147 N.Y.S.3d 895

Citing Cases

People v. Lides

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting…

People v. Lides

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting…