Opinion
Appeal No. 15823 Ind No. 3587/14Case No. 2021-02940
04-28-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kevin Jagnandan, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal No. 15823 No. 2021-02940
Law Office of Stephen N. Preziosi, P.C., New York (Stephen N. Preziosi of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jennifer L. Watson of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Stephen N. Preziosi, P.C., New York (Stephen N. Preziosi of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jennifer L. Watson of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Singh, González, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (April A. Newbauer, J.), entered on or about July 14, 2020, denying defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment rendered June 14, 2017, unanimously affirmed.
After an evidentiary hearing, Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion, in which he claimed that the attorney who represented him at his trial had a conflict of interest because this attorney and the attorney representing the codefendant were allegedly members of the same de facto law firm. There is no basis for disturbing the court's detailed findings of fact, in which it credited the testimony of both counsel that they were separately incorporated, had separate offices in the same complex, did not share client confidences, carefully kept their finances separate, and in virtually all respects operated independently of each other. Although the attorneys were father and son, and the father paid for some mutual office expenses, the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that they effectively operated as a single firm. Evidence suggesting that that they may have held themselves out as members of the same firm was satisfactorily explained.
Furthermore, defendant did not establish that the alleged conflict operated on the defense (see People v Sanchez, 21 N.Y.3d 216, 223 [2013]; People v Ennis, 11 N.Y.3d 403, 410 [2008]). Facts relating to the trial are set forth in this Court's decision on the defendants' joint appeal (People v Fraser, 162 A.D.3d 480 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1111 [2018]). The decisions by counsel now challenged by defendant, including the decision not to move for a severance, were strategically reasonable given the trial evidence and allegations of accessorial liability, and there were no indicia that counsel's personal, or alleged professional, relationship with his father caused him to breach his duties to defendant.
Because the evidence establishes that there was no joint representation, in that defendant and the codefendant were represented by counsel who were genuinely separate, there was no need for an inquiry under People v Gomberg (38 N.Y.2d 307 [1975]).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.