Home/New York Court of Appeals/People v. Perez

People v. Perez

515 N.E.2d 901, 70 N.Y.2d 773, 521 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 18946
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 8, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 515 N.E.2d 901 (People v. Perez) 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. Perez, 515 N.E.2d 901, 70 N.Y.2d 773, 521 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 18946 (N.Y. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The trial court’s failure to conduct a Gomberg inquiry (People v Gomberg, 38 NY2d 307) was not reversible error. In *774 the course of his preparation for trial, defendant’s counsel, a member of the Legal Aid Society, examined the confidential file of the People’s chief witness who was a client of another Legal Aid attorney on a prior unrelated charge. Defendant has not shown that this created a conflict of interest or even a significant possibility thereof (see, People v Lombardo, 61 NY2d 97, 103).

Unlike People v Mattison (67 NY2d 462) and People v McDonald (68 NY2d 1), no actual conflict was demonstrated in this case — only an indirect and distinctly remote possibility thereof. The prior unrelated charge on which the People’s witness was represented by a member of the Legal Aid Society had been dismissed a week before defendant’s trial began; defendant’s counsel was uninvolved in that matter or in any other matter involving the interests of the People’s witness; and counsel perceived no conflict and no loyalty owing to the witness. Moreover, counsel did, as he had assured the Trial Judge he would, conduct an extensive and vigorous cross-examination of the witness. He questioned the witness about his prior criminal activity and on the influence which dismissal of the witness’s prior criminal case was having on his testimony. Additionally, in his summation, counsel repeatedly attacked the witness’s honesty and credibility, and characterized him as a "drug addict” who was neither "upstanding” nor "forthright”. Indeed, if anyone’s interests were at risk in trial counsel’s representation of defendant, it was that of the witness whose confidential file had been examined.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Related

People v. Pagan
57 Misc. 3d 486 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2017)
People v. Stedge
135 A.D.3d 1174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Peyton
27 A.D.3d 402 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Finkelstein
25 A.D.3d 456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Abar
786 N.E.2d 1255 (New York Court of Appeals, 2003)
People v. Hunter
283 A.D.2d 248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Smart
750 N.E.2d 45 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)
People v. Indelicato
275 A.D.2d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Smith
271 A.D.2d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Frazier v. Kelly
112 F. Supp. 2d 253 (W.D. New York, 1999)
People v. Griffin
249 A.D.2d 244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Medina
208 A.D.2d 974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Rucker
204 A.D.2d 1063 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Burks
192 A.D.2d 542 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Austin v. State
609 A.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1992)
People v. Salsman
185 A.D.2d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Villanueva
181 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Wandell
151 A.D.2d 923 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Price
144 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Hertz v. State
755 P.2d 406 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
515 N.E.2d 901, 70 N.Y.2d 773, 521 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 18946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perez-ny-1987.