People v. Fioretti

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Fioretti

406 N.E.2d 746, 49 N.Y.2d 976, 428 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2324

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 406 N.E.2d 746 (People v. Fioretti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Fioretti, 406 N.E.2d 746, 49 N.Y.2d 976, 428 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2324 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered as to appellant for the reasons stated in Part B of the opinion by Mr. Justice J. Irwin Shapiro at the Appellate Division (68 AD2d, at pp 574-578). The trial court having made no meaningful inquiry on the record to ascertain whether appellant was cognizant of the potential risks inherent in his representation by the same counsel as his codefendant, the significant possibility of a conflict of interest arising out of the differing types and quantum of evidence against each, including the disincentive to calling appellant to the stand despite his lack of a criminal record, mandates reversal of his conviction (People v Macerola, 47 NY2d 257; see, also, People v Baffi, 49 NY2d 820).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed and a new trial ordered in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered as to appellant for the reasons stated in Part B of the opinion by Mr. Justice J. Irwin Shapiro at the Appellate Division (68 AD2d, at pp 574-578). The trial court having made no meaningful inquiry on the record to ascertain whether appellant was cognizant of the potential risks inherent in his representation by the same counsel as his codefendant, the significant possibility of a conflict of interest arising out of the differing types and quantum of evidence against each, including the disincentive to calling appellant to the stand despite his lack of a criminal record, mandates reversal of his conviction (People v Macerola, 47 NY2d 257; see, also, People v Baffi, 49 NY2d 820).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed and a new trial ordered in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 N.E.2d 746, 49 N.Y.2d 976, 428 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fioretti-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack