From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 2003
305 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2000-05718

Argued April 14, 2003.

May 5, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered June 8, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Andrew C. Fine, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Lisa Drury, Jerry Marti, and Debra J. Kondel of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

A defendant may be entitled to new assigned counsel upon a showing of good cause, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel (see People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822, 824; People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 207). In determining whether good cause exists, "a court must take into account such circumstances as whether present counsel is reasonably likely to afford a defendant effective assistance and whether the defendant has unduly delayed in seeking new assignment" (see People v. Medina, supra at 208).

We agree with the defendant that he was denied the right to counsel when the trial court denied his motion for substitution of counsel without conducting an adequate inquiry with respect to his allegations. Here, the defense counsel represented to the trial court that a grievance proceeding against her prevented her from providing effective representation, thereby raising the possibility of irreconcilable differences and an actual conflict of interest. As such, a new trial is ordered.

We need not consider the defendant's remaining contention in light of our determination herein.

S. MILLER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 2003
305 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. KRAIG BROWN, appellant

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

Date published: May 5, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 168

Citing Cases

People v. Ward

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the right to counsel by the trial court's…

People v. Ward

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the right to counsel by the trial court's…