Opinion
April 6, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
The instant application was submitted on the defendant's behalf by a fellow inmate who denominated himself as "Counsel pro ad hoc". It is undisputed that the fellow inmate was not admitted to the practice of law either in this State of any other jurisdiction, and, therefore, his attempted representation of the defendant was in violation of the proscription against the practice of law by nonlawyers (see, Judiciary Law §§ 478, 485; Spivak v Sachs, 16 N.Y.2d 163; Matter of Maldonado v New York State Bd. of Parole, 102 Misc.2d 880). While a defendant has a constitutional right to defend himself pro se (Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806; People v Smith, 68 N.Y.2d 737, cert denied ___ US ___, 107 S Ct 444), that right does not encompass the right to be represented in court by an individual who is not admitted to the practice of law (see, United States v Wright, 568 F.2d 142; United States v Hinderman, 528 F.2d 100). Accordingly, the motion was properly dismissed. Our decision is, however, without prejudice to a renewed application by the defendant on his own behalf, or by a duly admitted attorney, for the relief requested. Brown, J.P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.