Opinion
03-23-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Elmer CASTILLO, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brian Degraffenreid, Appellant.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York City (Akash M. Toprani, George R. Painter IV and Samuel S. Brickfield of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled action. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Lori Ann Farrington of counsel), for respondent in the first and second above-entitled actions.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York City (Akash M. Toprani, George R. Painter IV and Samuel S. Brickfield of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled action.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Lori Ann Farrington of counsel), for respondent in the first and second above-entitled actions.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed in each case. Codefendants Elmer Castillo and Brian Degraffenreid appeal from orders of the Appellate Division affirming their convictions for manslaughter in the first degree. Codefendants' challenge to the trial court's general charge on causation is unpreserved, and there was no mode of proceedings error (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ; see also People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 472, 429 N.Y.S.2d 584, 407 N.E.2d 430 [1980] ; People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 295, 383 N.Y.S.2d 573, 347 N.E.2d 898 [1976] ). In addition, defense counsel's failure to object to the charge does not constitute ineffective assistance, as the jury instructions, viewed in totality, neither improperly shifted the burden to codefendants nor relieved the People of their burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d at 472, 429 N.Y.S.2d 584, 407 N.E.2d 430 ; see also People v. Drake, 7 N.Y.3d 28, 33–34, 817 N.Y.S.2d 583, 850 N.E.2d 630 [2006] ). Additionally, codefendants' remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims are without merit as both codefendants received meaningful representation (see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 [1981] ; see also People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998] ; People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 183–184, 544 N.Y.S.2d 769, 543 N.E.2d 34 [1989] ; People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883 [2004] ).
Chief Judge DiFIORE and Judges RIVERA, ABDUS–SALAAM, STEIN, FAHEY, GARCIA and WILSON concur.In each case: On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11 ), order affirmed, in a memorandum.