From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gangaram

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 14, 2015
132 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-10-14

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Errol GANGARAM, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Jonathan K. Yi of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Jonathan K. Yi of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered March 6, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree, leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, failure to stop at a steady red signal, unsafe lane change, reckless driving, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and overtaking a school bus, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record in its entirety, the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698). Contrary to the defendant's contention, counsel's failure to request consideration of the lesser-included offense of assault in the third degree ( seePenal Law § 120.00[3] ) was a matter of strategy and tactics, which ultimately rested with counsel ( see People v. Colville, 20 N.Y.3d 20, 23, 955 N.Y.S.2d 799, 979 N.E.2d 1125). Under the facts of this case, counsel's representation cannot be considered ineffective ( see People v. Ennis, 11 N.Y.3d 403, 415, 872 N.Y.S.2d 364, 900 N.E.2d 915; People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gangaram

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 14, 2015
132 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Gangaram

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Errol GANGARAM, appellant.

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

Date published: Oct 14, 2015

Citations

132 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
132 A.D.3d 776
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7516

Citing Cases

People v. Musheyev

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see…

People v. Maxwell

Additionally, the defense of justification could not have resulted in an acquittal of all charges, which was…