PEOPLE v. RAJIB (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered August 9, 2023, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of five counts of predatory sexual assault against a child and three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's ineffective assistance claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by the record, regarding counsel's strategy and preparation (see People v. Ceballos, 189 A.D.3d 414, 415, 135 N.Y.S.3d 405 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 971, 150 N.Y.S.3d 690, 172 N.E.3d 802 [2021]).  In the absence of a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of defendant's ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on direct appeal.  In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998];  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984]).  Defendant did not show that any of counsel's alleged deficiencies fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that, viewed individually or collectively, they deprived defendant of a fair trial or affected the outcome of the case.

Since defense counsel consented to the annotated verdict sheet and had no objections to the charge, defendant's current arguments concerning these matters are waived or unpreserved, and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice (People v. Santos, 41 A.D.3d 324, 325, 838 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 926, 844 N.Y.S.2d 181, 875 N.E.2d 900 [2007];  see also People v. Belvett, 105 A.D.3d 538, 538, 963 N.Y.S.2d 204 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1040, 972 N.Y.S.2d 537, 995 N.E.2d 853 [2013]).  As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict sheet comported with CPL 310.20(2) (see People v. Lewis, 23 N.Y.3d 179, 186–187, 989 N.Y.S.2d 661, 12 N.E.3d 1091 [2014]).

The court properly granted the People's motion to amend the indictment to modify or expand the timeframes of certain of the charged crimes based on the trial evidence (see People v. Pan, 237 A.D.3d 482, 482, 229 N.Y.S.3d 404 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 1047, 236 N.Y.S.3d 650, 263 N.E.3d 908 [2025];  People v. Sinha, 84 A.D.3d 35, 44–45, 922 N.Y.S.2d 275 [1st Dept. 2011], affd 19 N.Y.3d 932, 951 N.Y.S.2d 697, 976 N.E.2d 223 [2012]).  The amendment of the timeframes did not change the prosecution's theory as reflected in the evidence before the grand jury.  It also did not prejudice defendant on the merits (see People v. Mayette, 233 A.D.3d 1097, 1102, 223 N.Y.S.3d 730 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 945, 231 N.Y.S.3d 402, 257 N.E.3d 97 [2025]).