Majority
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Because defense counsel’s decision not to seek dismissal of the robbery in the first degree charge for insufficient evidence would not have resulted in a dismissal of that charge (see People v Lopez, 73 NY2d 214 , 219-220 [1989]; People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374 , 380-381 [1983]), defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is meritless. Furthermore, the attorney’s conduct did not consist of “ ‘egregious and prejudicial’ error such that defendant did not receive a fair trial” (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 , 713 [1998], citing People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184 , 188-189 [1994]), but rather “viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal[s] that the attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 , 147 [1981]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
Cases cited
- People v. Lopez 73 NY2d 214 at 219-220 p. 752
- People v. Baskerville 60 NY2d 374 at 380-381 p. 752
- People v. Benevento 91 NY2d 708 at 713 p. 752
- People v. Flores 84 NY2d 184 at 188-189 p. 752
- People v. Baldi 54 NY2d 137 at 147 p. 752