People v Reyes
2010 NY Slip Op 03036 [72 AD3d 513]
April 15, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 9, 2010


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

[*1]Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E.Knight of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Dana Poole of counsel), forrespondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered on or aboutSeptember 26, 2008, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender and sexually violentoffender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.

Assuming, without deciding, that the state and federal standards for effective assistance at acriminal trial apply to a sex offender adjudication (see People v Reid, 59 AD3d 158 [2009], lv denied 12NY3d 708 [2009]), we conclude that defendant received effective assistance (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466US 668 [1984]). In the underlying criminal case, defendant had been indicted for multiple sexcrimes against two children, but only pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree sexual abuse. Inadjudicating him a level three offender, the court, relying on the victims' grand jury testimony,assessed points relating to the counts to which defendant did not plead guilty. On appeal,defendant faults his counsel for failing to use, or affirmatively asking the hearing court todisregard, material that could have impeached the victims' grand jury testimony, includingdocuments prepared during an investigation by the Administration for Children's Services.However, counsel could have reasonably concluded that, on the whole, the impeachmentmaterial was more damaging than helpful. In particular, the inconsistencies, especially as todates of events, could be readily explained, and the materials generally supported the victims'allegations. [*2]In any event, regardless of whether counselshould have used these documents, his failure to do so could not have affected the sex offenderadjudication or deprived defendant of a fair hearing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., McGuire,Moskowitz, Acosta and DeGrasse, 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.