The convictions should be reversed based on ineffective assistance of counsel. ( People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143; People v Hull, 71 AD3d 1336; People v Bartley, 298 AD2d 160; United States v Tarricone, 996 F2d 1414; People v Clarke, 66 AD3d 694; People v Dean, 50 AD3d 1052; People v Tillman, 179 AD2d 886; People v Jenkins, 68 NY2d 896.) III.

See, e.g., United States v. Kliti, 156 F.3d 150, 156 (2d Cir. 1998) ("When faced with an attorney as a sworn or unsworn witness, the proper recourse is to disqualify the attorney, not to exclude the testimony."); UnitedStates v. Vereen, 429 F.2d 713, 715 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (holding that where defendant could impeach victim's harmful statements only through testimony of defendant's trial counsel, counsel's withdrawal "was manifestly appropriate"); State v. Blake,157 Conn. 99, 249 A.2d 232, 234 (1968) (reversing conviction where trial court refused to permit defendant's attorney, who wished to testify on defendant's behalf, to withdraw from case); Gradsky v. State, 243 Miss. 379, 137 So.2d 820, 822 (1962) ("[R]efusal to permit defendant the right to introduce his attorney as a witness when he had vital evidence in favor of the defendant was reversible error."); People v. Tillman,179 A.D.2d 886, 579 N.Y.S.2d 197, 198 (1992) (holding that counsel's failure to question witness about prior admission that defendant never sold him drugs was prejudicial error, and noting that, if witness had refused to acknowledge admission before jury, "defense counsel could have sought . . . disqualification and . . . testified concerning the statement made to him").

Contrary to the dissent's contention, however, this was hardly a desirable outcome from defendant's perspective. If defense counsel withdrew, and another attorney was substituted in her place, there was a distinct possibility that she would be called by the People to rebut the testimony of Santiago and Torres either in the trial at hand, or, in the more likely event of a mistrial, at the retrial of the criminal action (see, People v. Knight, 80 N.Y.2d 845; see also, People v. Tillman, 179 A.D.2d 886). Although the dissent asserts that the possibility of withdrawal was not considered by the court or counsel, this is belied by the record.