Opinion
Argued January 12, 2000
February 24, 2000
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered June 17, 1996, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth Sack Felber of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Jane S. Meyers of counsel), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to the existence of an alleged conflict of interest. "A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must do more than show that defense counsel had a potential conflict of interest. To prevail, a defendant must demonstrate that the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest or that the conflict 'operated on' counsel's representation" (see, People v. Longtin, 92 N.Y.2d 640, 644 , quoting from People v. Alicea, 61 N.Y.2d 23, 31 ; see,People v. Ortiz, 76 N.Y.2d 652, 657 ; People v. Allen, 88 N.Y.2d 831 ;People v. Jordan, 83 N.Y.2d 785 ).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).