| People v Abdul-Khaliq |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06750 [43 AD3d 700] |
| September 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KhalifAbdul-Khaliq, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Jessica Slutsky of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered June 10,2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, asa second felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence. Defendant slashed his victim's face with a razor, causing an injury that required 31stitches, and his intent to cause serious physical injury could be readily inferred from his actions(see People v Getch, 50 NY2d 456, 465 [1980]; People v Walker, 30 AD3d 215 [2006], 7 NY3d 796 [2006]).
Defendant's challenges to the court's conduct of the trial are unpreserved and we decline toreview them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that mostof the court's questioning of defendant constituted proper efforts at clarification. While some ofthe court's questions were inappropriate, the jury was not prevented from arriving at an impartialjudgment on the merits (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944 [1978]).
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appealbecause they involve matters outside the record concerning counsel's strategic reasons, if any, fornot cross-examining the victim about his intent to file a civil action against defendant and againstthe owner of the premises on which the crime took place, and for not objecting to the court'sabove-discussed conduct (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People vLove, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we findthat defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see Peoplev Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466US 668 [1984]). Were we to find that counsel should have taken the actions suggested bydefendant on appeal, we would find that his failure to do so did not deprive defendant of a fairtrial or cause [*2]him any prejudice (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143,155-156 [2005]; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024 [1995]; compare People v Turner, 5 NY3d476 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Catterson, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.