MEMORANDUM The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law §140.30 [2]), assault in the second degree (§120.05 [3]), aggravated criminal contempt (§215.52 [1]), and resisting arrest (§205.30). On appeal defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for among other things failing to object to the admission of certain evidence at trial. On this record, defendant failed to demonstrate that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 687, 694 [1984]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. RIVERA, J. (dissenting): Counsel’s performance here was deficient in several respects and no reasonable defense strategy explains those failings. Before trial, counsel’s boilerplate motion referenced matters not at issue and lacked factual support in several respects, evincing counsel’s failure to properly investigate defendant’s case. Counsel also failed to show defendant video crucial to the prosecution’s case until shortly before trial—and even then, only after defendant complained to the court and the court ordered counsel to provide the video. During trial, counsel’s cross-examination of the victim resulted in admission of defendant’s criminal history, even though the trial court had denied the prosecution’s request to present that same history should defendant testify. Counsel then failed to object to an obviously-ambiguous jury instruction that might have resulted in a conviction on the top count. Despite these glaring errors, the majority concludes that defendant received constitutionally-acceptable representation. This outcome ignores our precedents and reduces the right to effective counsel to a platitude spoken to appease defendants. Our State Constitution’s guarantee of effective assistance ensures the integrity of the process and a fair trial—including for those defendants who appear guilty. Counsel’s many errors fell below that standard. I would therefore reverse and order a new trial.
I.
