People v Krasnovsky
2007 NY Slip Op 09117 [45 AD3d 446]
November 20, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Alexandra Krasnovsky, Appellant.

[*1]Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Claudia S. Trupp ofcounsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Marc Krupnick of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered July 12, 2006,convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in thefourth degree, and sentencing her, as a second drug felony offender, to a term of 3½ years,unanimously affirmed.

Defendant argues that the sentencing court deprived her of effective assistance of counselwhen it denied her attorney's request for an adjournment in order to permit him to further preparefor sentencing. However, this claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because the present recorddoes not show what additional sentencing arguments counsel might have made had he receivedan adjournment (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love,57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find thatdefendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466US 668 [1984]). Counsel had represented defendant at her guilty plea, and attended the trial atwhich she was a cooperating prosecution witness, was knowledgeable about the case and madeappropriate sentencing arguments (compare e.g. People v Jones, 15 AD3d 208 [2005]). The court based itssentence, which was considerably less than defendant's exposure under the plea agreement, onfacts with which the court was thoroughly familiar, having presided over the related proceeding.The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the request for an adjournment, and there isno reason [*2]to believe that counsel could have persuaded thecourt to impose a more lenient sentence if he had received more time to prepare.Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.