| People v Neil |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08720 [112 AD3d 1335] |
| December 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DavidO. Neil, Appellant. |
—[*1] Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, A.J.),rendered September 26, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea,of attempted arson in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his guiltyplea, of attempted arson in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00,150.15). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiencyof the plea allocution has been preserved for our review (see generally People vLopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), we conclude that defendant's challenge lacksmerit. Defendant "pleaded guilty to a crime lesser than that charged in the indictment,"and thus no factual colloquy was required (People v Richards, 93 AD3d 1240, 1240 [2012], lvdenied 20 NY3d 1014 [2013]). Defendant further contends that he was deniedeffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not explore or address apossible defense of intoxication. Although defendant's contention "survives his guiltyplea . . . to the extent that [he] contends that his plea was infected by thealleged ineffective assistance," we conclude that defendant received meaningfulrepresentation inasmuch as he received "an advantageous plea and nothing in the recordcasts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel" (People v Nieves, 299AD2d 888, 889 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 631 [2003] [internal quotation marksomitted]; see People vCampbell, 106 AD3d 1507, 1508 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1002[2013]). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.