PEOPLE v. CHENEVERT (2008)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [former (4) ] ).   Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because, inter alia, his attorney had a business relationship with co-defendant's attorney, and County Court failed to conduct a sufficient Gomberg inquiry after learning of that relationship.   We reject that contention.  “Defendant informed the court that he wanted defense counsel to continue to represent him, and it thus cannot be said that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel” (People v. Floyd, 45 A.D.3d 1457, 1459-1460, 846 N.Y.S.2d 537, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 810, 811, 818, 857 N.Y.S.2d 43, 44, 51, 886 N.E.2d 808, 809, 816;  see People v. Kopp, 33 A.D.3d 153, 158-159, 817 N.Y.S.2d 806, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 849, 823 N.Y.S.2d 779, 857 N.E.2d 74, cert. denied 549 U.S. 1227, 127 S.Ct. 1296, 167 L.Ed.2d 112;  People v. Murphy, 224 A.D.2d 1023, 637 N.Y.S.2d 903, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 1022, 644 N.Y.S.2d 156, 666 N.E.2d 1070;  see generally People v. McDonald, 68 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9, 505 N.Y.S.2d 824, 496 N.E.2d 844, rearg. dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 724, 512 N.Y.S.2d 366, 504 N.E.2d 693).   We have reviewed defendant's contention with respect to the remaining alleged instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and conclude that it is without merit (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   Contrary to defendant's further contention, “the verdict, based on the applicability of the automobile presumption ․, is not against the weight of the evidence” (People v. Wilburn, 50 A.D.3d 1617, 1618, 856 N.Y.S.2d 767;  see People v. Lesane, 284 A.D.2d 249, 250, 727 N.Y.S.2d 418;  People v. Delvas, 181 A.D.2d 740, 581 N.Y.S.2d 70;  see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Finally, we note that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted following a jury trial, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convicted following a nonjury trial (see generally People v. Saxton, 32 A.D.3d 1286, 821 N.Y.S.2d 353).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: