Opinion
May 11, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.).
The court properly determined that defendant was competent to stand trial despite the fact that defendant wished to pursue a seemingly futile conspiracy defense in the face of overwhelming evidence. The court had numerous opportunities to observe defendant during extensive colloquies, and the two most recent psychiatric examinations of defendant confirmed that he had "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and [that] he ha[s] a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him" ( People v. Pena, 251 A.D.2d 26, 30, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 929; see also, People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757; People v. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.