People v. Gerald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gerald

195 A.D.2d 1078, 602 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7921

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 16, 1993·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant sought new counsel based on the conclusory assertion that counsel was not working for him. Because that assertion was insufficient to constitute good cause for a substitution (see, People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 825; see also, People v Rodriguez, 166 AD2d 903, lv denied 77 NY2d 910), County Court was not required to make further inquiry into defendant’s request (see, People v Batista, 191 AD2d 317; People v Jones, 182 AD2d 708, 709, lv denied 80 NY2d 905). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant sought new counsel based on the conclusory assertion that counsel was not working for him. Because that assertion was insufficient to constitute good cause for a substitution (see, People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 825; see also, People v Rodriguez, 166 AD2d 903, lv denied 77 NY2d 910), County Court was not required to make further inquiry into defendant’s request (see, People v Batista, 191 AD2d 317; People v Jones, 182 AD2d 708, 709, lv denied 80 NY2d 905). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

People v. Gerald, 195 A.D.2d 1078, 602 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

195 A.D.2d 1078 (People v. Gerald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related