Defendant's contention that a purported conflict of interest between himself and his trial attorney deprived him of effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Since an attorney's ethical duty to advance the interest of his or her client is circumscribed by an "equally solemn duty" to "prevent and disclose frauds upon the court" ( Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 168-169), counsel properly informed the court about defendant's confidential request to have counsel participate in defendant's apparent plan to lay a false foundation for a speedy trial application. Counsel's conduct did not create or evince any actual potential conflict of interest between counsel's own interests and defendant's interests ( supra; People v. Tyler, 245 A.D.2d 1100) and, in any event, even if such conflict existed, defendant has made no showing that it affected counsel's conduct of the defense ( see, People v. Ortiz, 76 N.Y.2d 652, 657). We have reviewed defendant's remaining arguments in this connection and find them to be without merit.

We perceive no abuse of discretion, and find that the court weighed the proper criteria ( see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-b]), in the court's imposition of sentence consecutive to a sentence imposed under another weapon possession indictment upon which defendant had been on bail at the time of the instant crime.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.