From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Figueroa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 31, 1991
169 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 31, 1991

Appeal from the County Court of Clinton County (Feinberg, J.).


Defendant's assertion of inadequate legal representation is predicated on the fact that his attorney failed to properly prepare for the trial, elicited prejudicial testimony and made prejudicial remarks during summation. Viewing trial counsel's performance "in its entirety, in conjunction with the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case" (People v Vanterpool, 143 A.D.2d 282, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 860), we cannot say that defense counsel failed to meet the standards enunciated in People v Baldi ( 54 N.Y.2d 137). Since the prosecution was accommodating in providing defense counsel with the information she requested, there was no reason to make any pretrial discovery motions. In addition, taking the summation as a whole, we find no prejudice to defendant. The resolution of this issue obviates the need to address defendant's remaining claim that County Court erred in failing to grant either his motion to adjourn or his posttrial motion to set aside the verdict, both of which were predicated on the same claim.

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Figueroa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 31, 1991
169 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Figueroa

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WALTER FIGUEROA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 31, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)