People v. Merritt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Merritt

260 A.D.2d 319, 689 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4408

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

DecidedApril 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 319 (People v. Merritt) 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. Merritt, 260 A.D.2d 319, 689 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered May 6, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s requests for assignment of new counsel, made shortly before and during the Mapp hearing and trial, since defendant did not establish good cause for such substitution (see, People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822). Defendant’s unjustified hostility toward, and refusal to communicate with, his counsel did not constitute good cause (People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 19, cert denied 459 US 1178; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 208-209; People v Garcia, 250 AD2d 421, Iv denied 92 NY2d 897). [320]*320Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered May 6, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s requests for assignment of new counsel, made shortly before and during the Mapp hearing and trial, since defendant did not establish good cause for such substitution (see, People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822). Defendant’s unjustified hostility toward, and refusal to communicate with, his counsel did not constitute good cause (People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 19, cert denied 459 US 1178; People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 208-209; People v Garcia, 250 AD2d 421, Iv denied 92 NY2d 897). [320]*320Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 319, 689 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-merritt-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack