Opinion
June 21, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
The record supports the hearing court's determination (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759), that the defendant (1) retained the services of an attorney admitted to the Bar of this State to represent him in the underlying criminal action, and (2) the attorney at every critical stage was in charge of the defense team, and made all of the strategy decisions in connection with that defense. Moreover, on the defendant's direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (see, People v. De Soto, 112 A.D.2d 444), this Court rejected his argument that his attorney had rendered ineffective assistance. Although an individual who was not admitted to the Bar of this State or any other jurisdiction was a member of the defense team, the record supports the conclusion that he was only a paralegal, who assisted the attorney in preparing the defense, but did not make any strategic decisions. Under these circumstances, the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the paralegal's participation "affected the defense in such a way * * * that meaningful representation was not supplied under the Federal and State Constitutions" (People v. Winkler, 71 N.Y.2d 592, 597; People v Leslie, 154 Misc.2d 325; cf., People v. Felder, 47 N.Y.2d 287; United States v. Novak, 903 F.2d 883).
We have examined the defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Rodriguez, 191 A.D.2d 723; People v. Bolling, 167 A.D.2d 345; People v. Wilkins, 133 A.D.2d 477). Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.