Opinion
November 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.).
There was no violation of defendant's right to representation by a conflict-free counsel when, after a nonjury trial at which defendant was represented by counsel, defendant consented to be represented by codefendant's counsel simply for the reading of the verdict and setting a date for sentence, since, at that juncture, no active participation by counsel was called for (see, People v. Ortiz, 76 N.Y.2d 652, 657).
Nor, in view of defendant's familiarity with the criminal justice system, his representation by counsel and the extensive inquiry made of him by the court to ensure that he understood the consequences of waiving a jury trial, can his waiver of a jury trial be deemed involuntary because of the court's promise to impose the minimum sentence should he opt for a nonjury trial and be convicted (see, People v. Watson, 162 A.D.2d 360, 361).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.