People v. Baffi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baffi

70 A.D.2d 644, 416 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12086

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 21, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.2d 644 (People v. Baffi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Baffi, 70 A.D.2d 644, 416 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 2, 1977, convicting him of possession of gambling records in the first degree and promoting gambling in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. At trial appellant and two codefendants were represented by the same attorney. The record reveals that prior to trial, the defense attorney told the Trial Judge that he had discussed the possibility of a conflict of interest with his clients, and that they indicated that they wanted him to continue to represent them. In these circumstances, the Trial Judge was under no obligation to inquire further of the defendants concerning the problem of joint representation (see People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 314; United States v Armone, 363 F2d 385, 406, cert den 385 US 957). Appellant’s remaining contentions are devoid of merit. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 2, 1977, convicting him of possession of gambling records in the first degree and promoting gambling in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. At trial appellant and two codefendants were represented by the same attorney. The record reveals that prior to trial, the defense attorney told the Trial Judge that he had discussed the possibility of a conflict of interest with his clients, and that they indicated that they wanted him to continue to represent them. In these circumstances, the Trial Judge was under no obligation to inquire further of the defendants concerning the problem of joint representation (see People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307, 314; United States v Armone, 363 F2d 385, 406, cert den 385 US 957). Appellant’s remaining contentions are devoid of merit. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 644, 416 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baffi-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack