People v. Winter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Winter

88 A.D.3d 824, 930 N.Y.2d 904

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 824 (People v. Winter) 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. Winter, 88 A.D.3d 824, 930 N.Y.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to relieve assigned counsel. After conducting a sufficient inquiry, the Supreme Court discredited the defendant’s allegations that there had been a complete breakdown of communication and trust in his relationship with counsel, a determination we decline to disturb (cf. People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822 [1990]). Moreover, the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusions that the purpose of the motion was merely to delay the proceedings, and that assigned counsel was reasonably likely to provide the defendant with effective assistance (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]; People v Ayuso, 80 AD3d 708, 709 [2011]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied. Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to relieve assigned counsel. After conducting a sufficient inquiry, the Supreme Court discredited the defendant’s allegations that there had been a complete breakdown of communication and trust in his relationship with counsel, a determination we decline to disturb (cf. People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822 [1990]). Moreover, the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusions that the purpose of the motion was merely to delay the proceedings, and that assigned counsel was reasonably likely to provide the defendant with effective assistance (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]; People v Ayuso, 80 AD3d 708, 709 [2011]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied. Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 824, 930 N.Y.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-winter-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack