¶1Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record we conclude that the identification evidence presented was legally sufficient and was supported by the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Additionally, we find that defendant was provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Trial counsel’s failure to preserve a Rosario issue (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, rearg denied 9 NY2d 908, cert denied 368 US 866) did not, standing alone, render counsel’s assistance ineffective (see, People v Montana, 71 NY2d 705, 709). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
159 A.D.2d 970
People v. Nuness
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 16, 1990
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1990-03-16
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 2000
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1990-03-16
View the full empirical analysis of this case →