People v Crisp

Holding The judgment of conviction is affirmed because the defendant failed to preserve his claims of unfair trial and ineffective assistance of counsel for appellate review. Additionally, the court granted the People’s motion to strike portions of the defendant’s reply brief that raised new arguments for the first time.

The court’s words

The defendant's contention that the testimony of a detective at trial that the Nassau County Gang Investigation Squad took primary responsibility for investigating the shooting altercation deprived the defendant of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review

2026 NY Slip Op 05192, at the official text

The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the detective's testimony that witnesses seen in surveillance video footage of the altercation were afraid to cooperate with police and that such non-cooperation was common for witnesses in shooting cases denied him of the right to a fair trial and to confront witnesses

2026 NY Slip Op 05192, at the official text

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Govan, 248 AD3d 1276, 1277). The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this particular case, viewed in totality, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation and was not ineffective for failing to preserve certain issues or request certain curative or limiting instructions

2026 NY Slip Op 05192, at the official text