| People v Danraj |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06250 [75 AD3d 651] |
| July 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mahendra Danraj, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin,J.), rendered August 9, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), unlawful possession ofmarijuana, and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (two counts), aftera nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing (O'Dwyer, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were tosuppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the SupremeCourt, Queens County, for a new trial.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record supports the hearing court's determinationthat the stop of the defendant's vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion (see People v Jogie, 51 AD3d1038, 1039 [2008]; People vMcCoy, 30 AD3d 441, 442 [2006]; People v Vitiello, 285 AD2d 480 [2001]).Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibusmotion which were to suppress physical evidence and certain statements to law enforcementofficials.
Viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant toCPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]).
A new trial is required, however, because the defendant was deprived of the effectiveassistance of counsel. Recognizing that in reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance we must"avoid both confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and according unduesignificance to retrospective analysis" (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146 [1981]), wenevertheless conclude that the defendant has demonstrated that there was no strategic or otherlegitimate explanation for defense counsel's elicitation of unfavorable hearsay testimony from aprosecution witness during cross-[*2]examination, and failure toargue that the weapon and marijuana found in the vehicle the defendant was driving may havebelonged to a passenger of the vehicle who was not apprehended. The cumulative effect ofdefense counsel's errors deprived the defendant of meaningful representation and a fair trial(see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Clarke, 66 AD3d 694, 698 [2009]; People v Jeannot, 59 AD3d 737[2009]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Fisher, J.P., Lott, Austin and Sgroi,JJ., concur.