| People v Ragbirsingh |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06298 [153 AD3d 858] |
| August 23, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rodney Ragbirsingh, Appellant. |
Patrick Michael Megaro, Forest Hills, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and JillOziemblewski of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.),rendered September 20, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record asa whole, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).Moreover, trial counsel's failure to move to suppress certain statements based on the allegedviolation of the defendant's indelible right to counsel did not constitute ineffective assistance ofcounsel since such a motion had little to no chance of success (see People v Carver, 27 NY3d418, 420-421 [2016]; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Vonneida, 130 AD3d1322, 1322-1323 [2015]; People v Coats, 195 AD2d 519, 519 [1993]).
This Court, in a prior decision and order on motion, remitted this appeal to the SupremeCourt, Kings County, for a reconstruction hearing with respect to certain proceedings that couldnot be transcribed. The defendant now contends that the reconstruction hearing was inadequate toprotect his right of appeal. However, our review of the reconstructed minutes satisfactorilydemonstrates that the missing minutes were adequately reconstructed through the testimony ofthe hearing justice, the prosecutor, court notes, and documentary evidence (see People vRivera, 39 NY2d 519, 522 [1976]; People v Kings, 100 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2012]). The defendant'sspeculation regarding potential objections and arguments that may have been raised, but whichcould not be recalled by the witnesses, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity in theproceedings (see People v Kings, 100 AD3d at 1020). Thus, the defendant has failed todemonstrate that the reconstruction hearing was inadequate to protect his right to appeal (seePeople v Kings, 100 AD3d at 1020; People v Breaziel, 246 AD2d 310, 311 [1998];People v Andino, 183 AD2d 834, 834-835 [1992]; cf. People v Hall, 200 AD2d474 [1994]). Dillon, J.P., Roman, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.