PEOPLE v. SINGLETON

Viewing the trial record and the submissions on the motion to vacate judgment as a whole, we conclude that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714). The affirmation of counsel, submitted in opposition to defendant's CPL 440.10 motion, provided sufficient tactical explanations for his conduct. Defendant has not established that counsel's alleged errors "seriously compromise[d]" his right to a fair trial (People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 566, citing People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1022).

The court properly found that the nine-year-old complainant had sufficient capacity to comprehend the nature and obligations of an oath and to give an accurate account of the matters at issue (People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 45-46).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.