People v. Cordero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cordero

78 A.D.3d 859, 910 N.Y.S.2d 363

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 859 (People v. Cordero) 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. Cordero, 78 A.D.3d 859, 910 N.Y.S.2d 363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J), rendered June 8, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to the existence of an alleged conflict of interest. A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest must do more than show that the defense counsel had a potential conflict of interest. To prevail, the defendant must show that the “conduct of [the] defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest, or that the conflict operated on the representation” (People v Konstantinides, 14 NY3d 1, 10 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ennis, 11 NY3d 403, 410 [2008], cert denied 129 S Ct 2383 [2009]; People v Longtin, 92 NY2d 640, 644 [1998], cert denied 526 US 1114 [1999]). Here, the defendant failed to make such a showing. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J), rendered June 8, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to the existence of an alleged conflict of interest. A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest must do more than show that the defense counsel had a potential conflict of interest. To prevail, the defendant must show that the “conduct of [the] defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest, or that the conflict operated on the representation” (People v Konstantinides, 14 NY3d 1, 10 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ennis, 11 NY3d 403, 410 [2008], cert denied 129 S Ct 2383 [2009]; People v Longtin, 92 NY2d 640, 644 [1998], cert denied 526 US 1114 [1999]). Here, the defendant failed to make such a showing. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 859, 910 N.Y.S.2d 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cordero-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack