People v. Indelicato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Indelicato

275 A.D.2d 674, 713 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10027

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 674 (People v. Indelicato) 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. Indelicato, 275 A.D.2d 674, 713 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered November 20, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, ás a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 years, 1 year, and 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant has not established that the circumstance that another attorney in his counsel’s firm had one year earlier represented a prosecution witness created a conflict of interest or deprived defendant of meaningful representation. Defendant’s claim that the successive representations affected his counsel’s conduct of the trial is unsupported by the record (see, People v Jordan, 83 NY2d 785; People v Perez, 70 NY2d 773). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered November 20, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, ás a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 years, 1 year, and 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant has not established that the circumstance that another attorney in his counsel’s firm had one year earlier represented a prosecution witness created a conflict of interest or deprived defendant of meaningful representation. Defendant’s claim that the successive representations affected his counsel’s conduct of the trial is unsupported by the record (see, People v Jordan, 83 NY2d 785; People v Perez, 70 NY2d 773). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 674, 713 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-indelicato-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack