Opinion
April 8, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well established that once representation is undertaken, a lawyer must withdraw as advocate if it appears that he must testify on behalf of his own client (see, People v. Paperno, 54 N.Y.2d 294; People v. Limongelli, 156 A.D.2d 473, 475; Matter of Bartoli, 143 A.D.2d 830; Matter of Benincasa v. Garrubbo, 141 A.D.2d 636). In this case, defense counsel should have anticipated the distinct possibility that he might be called upon to testify concerning certain private conversations with the complainants, during which they revealed that they might be unable to identify their assailants owing to the passage of time. Nevertheless, notwithstanding counsel's failure to seek leave to withdraw, his trial tactics were effective and afforded the defendant meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.