| People v Constas |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01492 [59 AD3d 729] |
| February 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SteveConstas, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, andDanielle Gurkin of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered August 21, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due tocounsel's failure to present an insanity defense is without merit. The defendant, who was foundcompetent to stand trial, was consistent in his refusal to present such a defense. Once a defendantis found competent to stand trial, he has every right, even over counsel's objection, to reject theuse of an insanity defense (see People v Pulecio, 237 AD2d 633 [1997]). Viewing therecord as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Baldi,54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People vArevalo, 54 AD3d 380, 380-381 [2008]; People v Adams, 12 AD3d 523 [2004]). Defense counsel presenteda reasonable defense, interposed appropriate objections, and effectively cross-examinedwitnesses (see People v Smith, 12AD3d 707 [2004]; People vAdams, 12 AD3d 523 [2004]).
The defendant's contention that he was denied the right to be present during the trial andsentencing is without merit. The defendant was informed of the right to be present and theconsequences of failing to appear for trial, namely, that the trial would proceed even if he failedto appear (see People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 139-141 [1982]; People v Severino, 44 AD3d1077, 1078 [2007]). The defendant, after being given these warnings, refused to come to thecourtroom for the trial or sentencing. Reasonable efforts were made to determine whether hisrefusal was voluntary. The [*2]court properly determined that thetrial and sentencing should proceed in his absence (see People v Ciccarello, 276 AD2d637 [2000]; People v Dhan, 271 AD2d 452 [2000]; People v Ravenell, 179AD2d 788, 789 [1992]). Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.