People v. Perez

65 A.D.2d 803, 410 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13678
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Perez. Read the opinion of the Court — 60 A.D.2d 656

Opinion

Appeals by defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, both rendered June 23, 1977, convicting each of them of possession of cigarettes for the purpose of sale, for which no New York State tax was paid, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgments affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). At the trial defendants were represented by one retained attorney. The record does not indicate whether the trial court advised them as to the potential perils of that course. Defendants now claim that the fact that they were represented by one attorney deprived them of a fair trial. However, they do not allege any specific conflict of interest between them. Further, the record demonstrates that no conflict of interest arose. Therefore, the fact that they were represented by one attorney does not warrant reversal (see People v Sullivan, 64 AD2d 533; People v Ragonesi, 63 AD2d 741). We have considered the other issues raised by defendants and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Perez, 65 A.D.2d 803, 410 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

65 A.D.2d 803 (People v. Perez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Ragonesi
63 A.D.2d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
People v. Sullivan
64 A.D.2d 533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)