| Matter of Lasun S. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06803 [76 AD3d 1079] |
| September 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lasun S., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Fay Ng and Andrew Shapiro ofcounsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal isfrom an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated September17, 2009, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated July 29, 2009, made after ahearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would haveconstituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) andunlawful possession of weapons by persons under 16 (two counts), adjudged him to be a juveniledelinquent and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and FamilyServices for a period of up to 18 months.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that his counsel's representation was ineffective based upon counsel'sfailure to move to suppress the weapon which the appellant discarded in the street. Where it isalleged that counsel is ineffective for failure to request a particular hearing, "it is incumbent on[the appellant] to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations forcounsel's failure to request a particular hearing" (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709[1988]; see People v Noll, 24 AD3d688 [2005]), i.e., that there is no "rational justification" for counsel's conduct (People v Cyrus, 48 AD3d 150, 157[2007]). Here, the appellant failed to meet that burden, in view of the equivocal merits of amotion to suppress (see People vQuinones, 12 NY3d 116, 121 [2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct104 [2009]; People v Pines, 99 NY2d 525 [2002]), and the fact that a hearing on such amotion could have elicited evidence admissible at the fact-finding hearing that the appellantmade a calculated decision to discard the gun, which would have contradicted his claim ofinnocence.
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v Edwards, 14 NY3d 733 [2010]). Mastro, J.P.,Santucci, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.