to render decisions that are at least sufficiently informative to permit meaningful appellate review ....” Id. at 64. While the District Court may have had satisfactory reasons for dismissing the petition, we cannot presume “the correctness of an unexplained decision rendered on a record that is inadequate to reveal the decision’s rationale.” Id. at 67-68. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings. 1 . A conviction becomes final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) upon expiration of the ninety-day period to petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Sup.Ct. R. 13(1); Valverde v. Stin L § 440.10(3)'s discretionary denials. See Caballero v. Keane, 42 F.3d 738, 740-41 (2d Cir.1994)
holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding that cpl  440102c was adequate and independent state ground to deny ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on failure to object to jury charge holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding ineffective assistance claim involving matters clearly outside of the trial record to be unexhausted because new york procedures remained available pursuant to cpl  44010 recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel