Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1648 (Onondaga)
after the murder a photo depicting stacks of money. Although defense counsel's question opened the door to the admission of the social media post, which the court had previously ruled inadmissible as too speculative, defense counsel reasonably opted to introduce the social media post as a defense exhibit after the court ruled that it was now going to "allow the People to offer that exhibit" and thereafter strategically sought to undermine the testimony concerning the police investigation by exacting admissions from the lead detective that he did not know who took the photo, when the photo was taken, or whose money was depicted in the photo, that the money could have been obtained from unrelated sources such as gambling winnings or repayment of a debt, and that no such money was located when the police executed a search warrant of defendant's home (see Honghirun, 29 N.Y.3d at 290; People v Tarver, 202 A.D.3d 1368, 1370 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1114 [2023]; People v Smith, 192 A.D.3d 1648, 1649 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 968 [2021]; People v Banks, 181 A.D.3d 973, 976-977 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1025 [2020]). Thus, although defense counsel's cross-examination of the lead detective opened the door to the admission of the social media post, "[v]iewed objectively, the transcript... reveal[s] the existence of a trial strategy that might well have been pursued by a reasonably competent attorney [and]... [i]t is not for this [C]ourt to second-guess whether a course chosen by defendant's counsel was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningful representation" (People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799-800 [1985]; see People v Delp, 156 A.D.3d 1450, 1451 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 983 [2018]).
Defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to call a particular witness is based on matters outside the record and thus must be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see generallyPeople v. Maffei , 35 N.Y.3d 264, 269-270, 127 N.Y.S.3d 403, 150 N.E.3d 1169 [2020] ). Defendant's contentions concerning the purported inadequacies in the cross-examination of the witnesses are merely "hindsight disagreements with defense counsel's trial strategies, and defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the absence of any legitimate explanations for those strategies" ( People v. Morrison , 48 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 852 N.Y.S.2d 495 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 867, 860 N.Y.S.2d 494, 890 N.E.2d 257 [2008] ; seePeople v. Smith , 192 A.D.3d 1648, 1649, 141 N.Y.S.3d 397 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 968, 148 N.Y.S.3d 754, 171 N.E.3d 230 [2021] ). Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case as a whole and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generallyPeople v. Baldi , 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 [1981] ).
Defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to call a particular witness is based on matters outside the record and thus must be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see generally People v Maffei, 35 N.Y.3d 264, 269-270 [2020]). Defendant's contentions concerning the purported inadequacies in the cross-examination of the witnesses are merely "hindsight disagreements with defense counsel's trial strategies, and defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the absence of any legitimate explanations for those strategies" (People v Morrison, 48 A.D.3d 1044, 1045 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 867 [2008]; see People v Smith, 192 A.D.3d 1648, 1649 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 968 [2021]). Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case as a whole and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147 [1981]).
Defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to call a particular witness is based on matters outside the record and thus must be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see generally People v Maffei, 35 N.Y.3d 264, 269-270 [2020]). Defendant's contentions concerning the purported inadequacies in the cross-examination of the witnesses are merely "hindsight disagreements with defense counsel's trial strategies, and defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the absence of any legitimate explanations for those strategies" (People v Morrison, 48 A.D.3d 1044, 1045 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 867 [2008]; see People v Smith, 192 A.D.3d 1648, 1649 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 968 [2021]). Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case as a whole and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147 [1981]).