Opinion
December 21, 1990
Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel merely because the codefendant's attorney appeared for defendant at his arraignment. Defendant was fully apprised of the potential conflict of interest caused by the joint representation and consented to counsel's appearance (see, People v. Recupero, 73 N.Y.2d 877, 878-879; People v. McDonald, 68 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9, rearg dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 724). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that "a significant possibility of a conflict of interest existed bearing a substantial relationship to the conduct of the defense" and he has not pointed to facts suggesting "that the potential for conflict actually operated" (People v. Recupero, supra, at 879).
Further, we find that defendant's subsequent counsel provided meaningful representation and therefore defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).