Next, contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the People presented evidence-including the testimony of the victim, the victim's medical records, and photographs of the victim's injuries-that was legally sufficient to establish that the victim suffered the requisite "[p]hysical injury" as defined in Penal Law § 10.00 (9) to support defendant's conviction of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [2] [a]; see People v McKoy, 217 A.D.3d 1410, 1410 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 998 [2023]; People v Vives, 1 A.D.3d 1014, 1015 [4th Dept 2003]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Settles, 192 A.D.3d 1510, 1511-1512 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960 [2021]; see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495). Even assuming, arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we conclude that it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see Settles, 192 A.D.3d at 1512; see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495).
Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1510 (Ontario)
Although defense counsel's tactic of refraining from objecting to the prosecution's impeachment of its witness was not successful, it cannot be said that defense counsel's performance at trial was not effective (seePeople v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ; People v. Settles, 192 A.D.3d 1510, 1511, 143 N.Y.S.3d 479 ). The defendant also failed to show that defense counsel's failure to object to evidence that a witness identified the defendant in a photo array lacked a legitimate strategic purpose (seePeople v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Williams, 136 A.D.3d 686, 686–687, 23 N.Y.S.3d 911 ).
Inasmuch as defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, "the claim is properly evaluated using the state standard" ( People v. Oliver [appeal No. 2], 162 A.D.3d 1722, 1723, 79 N.Y.S.3d 812 [4th Dept. 2018] ; seePeople v. Stultz , 2 N.Y.3d 277, 282-284, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883 [2004], rearg denied 3 N.Y.3d 702, 785 N.Y.S.2d 29, 818 N.E.2d 671 [2004] ; Conway , 148 A.D.3d at 1741, 50 N.Y.S.3d 739 ). That standard provides that "[a] single error may qualify as ineffective assistance, but only when the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant's right to a fair trial" ( People v. Caban , 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005] ; seePeople v. Settles , 192 A.D.3d 1510, 1511, 143 N.Y.S.3d 479 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960, 147 N.Y.S.3d 545, 170 N.E.3d 419 [2021] ; People v. Johnson , 192 A.D.3d 1612, 1615, 143 N.Y.S.3d 763 [4th Dept. 2021] ). Here, in light of the lack of any evidence that the stun belt was visible to the jurors or that they were aware of its presence, we conclude that defendant failed to make a sufficient showing of egregiousness or that his right to a fair trial was compromised, and thus the court properly determined that defendant's allegations "do not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel."
Inasmuch as defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, "the claim is properly evaluated using the state standard" (People v Oliver [appeal No. 2], 162 A.D.3d 1722, 1723 [4th Dept 2018]; see People v Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 282-284 [2004], rearg denied 3 N.Y.3d 702 [2004]; Conway, 148 A.D.3d at 1741). That standard provides that "[a] single error may qualify as ineffective assistance, but only when the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant's right to a fair trial" (People v Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152 [2005]; see People v Settles, 192 A.D.3d 1510, 1511 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960 [2021]; People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 1612, 1615 [4th Dept 2021]). Here, in light of the lack of any evidence that the stun belt was visible to the jurors or that they were aware of its presence, we conclude that defendant failed to make a sufficient showing of egregiousness or that his right to a fair trial was compromised, and thus the court properly determined that defendant's allegations "do not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel."
tional person to the conclusion" (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]) that defendant was one of the two perpetrators (see People v Alston, 174 A.D.3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 978 [2019], reconsideration denied 34 N.Y.3d 1014 [2019], cert denied - U.S. -, 140 S.Ct. 2530 [2020]) and that defendant unlawfully entered the dwelling (see People v Miller, 32 N.Y.2d 157, 159 [1973]; People v Wright, 1 A.D.3d 707, 707-708 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 636 [2004]; see generally People v Mosley, 200 A.D.3d 1664, 1665-1666 [4th Dept 2021]). Additionally, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to his identity as one of the perpetrators (see People v Settles, 192 A.D.3d 1510, 1511-1512 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960 [2021]) and his unlawful entry (see People v Curran, 139 A.D.3d 1085, 1086 [2d Dept 2016], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1080 [2018]; Wright, 1 A.D.3d at 708). Even assuming, arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we conclude that it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495).
ople v. Alston , 174 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 105 N.Y.S.3d 680 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 978, 113 N.Y.S.3d 663, 137 N.E.3d 33 [2019], reconsideration denied 34 N.Y.3d 1014, 114 N.Y.S.3d 739, 138 N.E.3d 468 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 2530, 206 L.Ed.2d 474 [2020] ) and that defendant unlawfully entered the dwelling (seePeople v. Miller , 32 N.Y.2d 157, 159, 344 N.Y.S.2d 342, 297 N.E.2d 85 [1973] ; People v. Wright , 1 A.D.3d 707, 707-708, 766 N.Y.S.2d 730 [3d Dept. 2003], lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 636, 777 N.Y.S.2d 34, 808 N.E.2d 1293 [2004] ; see generallyPeople v. Mosley , 200 A.D.3d 1664, 1665-1666, 159 N.Y.S.3d 308 [4th Dept. 2021] ). Additionally, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (seePeople v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to his identity as one of the perpetrators (seePeople v. Settles , 192 A.D.3d 1510, 1511-1512, 143 N.Y.S.3d 479 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960, 147 N.Y.S.3d 545, 170 N.E.3d 419 [2021] ) and his unlawful entry (seePeople v. Curran , 139 A.D.3d 1085, 1086, 33 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2d Dept. 2016], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1080, 79 N.Y.S.3d 102, 103 N.E.3d 1249 [2018] ; Wright , 1 A.D.3d at 708, 766 N.Y.S.2d 730 ). Even assuming, arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we conclude that it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generallyBleakley , 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
Inasmuch as defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, "the claim is properly evaluated using the state standard" (People v Oliver [appeal No. 2], 162 A.D.3d 1722, 1723 [4th Dept 2018]; see People v Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 282-284 [2004], rearg denied 3 N.Y.3d 702 [2004]; Conway, 148 A.D.3d at 1741). That standard provides that "[a] single error may qualify as ineffective assistance, but only when the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant's right to a fair trial" (People v Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152 [2005]; see People v Settles, 192 A.D.3d 1510, 1511 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960 [2021]; People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 1612, 1615 [4th Dept 2021]). Here, in light of the lack of any evidence that the stun belt was visible to the jurors or that they were aware of its presence, we conclude that defendant failed to make a sufficient showing of egregiousness or that his right to a fair trial was compromised, and thus the court properly determined that defendant's allegations "do not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel."
tional person to the conclusion" (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]) that defendant was one of the two perpetrators (see People v Alston, 174 A.D.3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 978 [2019], reconsideration denied 34 N.Y.3d 1014 [2019], cert denied - U.S. -, 140 S.Ct. 2530 [2020]) and that defendant unlawfully entered the dwelling (see People v Miller, 32 N.Y.2d 157, 159 [1973]; People v Wright, 1 A.D.3d 707, 707-708 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 636 [2004]; see generally People v Mosley, 200 A.D.3d 1664, 1665-1666 [4th Dept 2021]). Additionally, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to his identity as one of the perpetrators (see People v Settles, 192 A.D.3d 1510, 1511-1512 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960 [2021]) and his unlawful entry (see People v Curran, 139 A.D.3d 1085, 1086 [2d Dept 2016], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1080 [2018]; Wright, 1 A.D.3d at 708). Even assuming, arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we conclude that it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495).