People v. Batista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Batista

191 A.D.2d 317, 595 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2609

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 317 (People v. Batista) 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. Batista, 191 A.D.2d 317, 595 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered April 29, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first and second degrees, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s boilerplate motion, requesting substitution of his assigned counsel for failure to communicate, did not show " 'good cause’ ” for such a substitution (People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 207; People v Jones, 171 AD2d 632, lv denied 78 NY2d 968). Based on defense counsel’s assertion that there [318]*318was no substance to the claim of failure to communicate, the trial court found that there was no "serious possibility of irreconcilable conflict”. Accordingly, the court was not obliged to make further inquiry into defendant’s claim (compare, People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered April 29, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first and second degrees, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s boilerplate motion, requesting substitution of his assigned counsel for failure to communicate, did not show " 'good cause’ ” for such a substitution (People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 207; People v Jones, 171 AD2d 632, lv denied 78 NY2d 968). Based on defense counsel’s assertion that there [318]*318was no substance to the claim of failure to communicate, the trial court found that there was no "serious possibility of irreconcilable conflict”. Accordingly, the court was not obliged to make further inquiry into defendant’s claim (compare, People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 317, 595 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-batista-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack