From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ciesluk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 1984
106 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

December 17, 1984

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.).


Judgment and order affirmed.

Review of the record demonstrates that defendant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620) and that he received effective assistance of counsel within the meaning of the Federal and State Constitutions ( Strickland v Washington, 466 US ___, 104 S Ct 2052; People v. Morris, 100 A.D.2d 630).

The motion to vacate the judgment was also correctly denied, although not for the reasons expressed by the County Court. Defendant's submission of an "unverified letter" ( People v Ford, 46 N.Y.2d 1021, 1023) was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on his claim of fraud and perjury (CPL 440.30, subd 4, par [d]; see People v. Brown, 56 N.Y.2d 242, 247; People v Ford, supra; People v. Session, 34 N.Y.2d 254; cf. People v Welcome, 37 N.Y.2d 811, 812-813; People v. Lopez, 104 A.D.2d 904).

The other points raised are meritless and do not warrant discussion. Titone, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and O'Connor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ciesluk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 1984
106 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Ciesluk

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PETER CIESLUK…

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

Date published: Dec 17, 1984

Citations

106 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

People v. Perez

In People v. Victor ( 62 N.Y.2d 374, 378), the Court of Appeals clearly stated that in a case involving an…

People v. Copeland

The judgment, however, must be reversed because of certain deficiencies in the trial court's charge on the…