From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Crespo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 28, 1992
179 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

January 28, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (William C. Donnino, J.).


Defendant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, since his trial attorney did not know that People v Mingo ( 125 Misc.2d 373) had been reversed by this court ( 121 A.D.2d 307), and was unaware of People v. Petralia ( 62 N.Y.2d 47). This lapse does not warrant reversal. The request for production of the undercover officer would not have been successful in any event, and the mere request for such relief, even if the result of ignorance, did not prejudice defendant. It has not been shown that counsel, who properly moved for suppression, did not competently cross-examine the officer, or otherwise effectively represent defendant at the hearing or subsequent plea.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Crespo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 28, 1992
179 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Crespo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE CRESPO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 28, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
578 N.Y.S.2d 831

Citing Cases

People v. Frieson

In any event, were this Court were to grant defendant's motion to reargue and address the merits, the claim…

People v. Benevento

It is true that defense counsel erroneously requested that assault in the third degree be charged as a lesser…