From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Batista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 1993
191 A.D.2d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 18, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.).


Defendant's boilerplate motion, requesting substitution of his assigned counsel for failure to communicate, did not show "`good cause'" for such a substitution (People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207; People v. Jones, 171 A.D.2d 632, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 968). Based on defense counsel's assertion that there was no substance to the claim of failure to communicate, the trial court found that there was no "serious possibility of irreconcilable conflict". Accordingly, the court was not obliged to make further inquiry into defendant's claim (compare, People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Batista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 1993
191 A.D.2d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Batista

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANDRES BATISTA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 18, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
595 N.Y.S.2d 43

Citing Cases

PWC M&A Advisory Grp., Inc. v. Halls Magazine Research, LLC

AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582 [2005]. Cherchia v. V.A.…

People v. Weston

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing defendant's request for new…