The Court of Appeals determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction. Defendant’s attorney was the subject of a criminal investigation by the district attorney’s office during defendant’s trial. The investigation of the attorney was not related to the charges against the defendant. Therefore an automatic reversal was not required. A hearing was necessary to determine if the conduct of the defense was affected by a conflict of interest (the district attorney’s investigation of defendant’s lawyer):
We reject defendant’s request to require automatic reversal anytime the defense attorney is under investigation or being prosecuted by the same district attorney’s office that is trying his client. Indeed, in People v Konstantinides (14 NY3d 1, 13 [2009]), we declined to adopt such a per se rule in a case where a defense attorney was accused of criminal misconduct (witness tampering, bribery and suborning perjury) in relation to a witness in his client’s case. An actual conflict would exist where a defense attorney was implicated in the crimes for which his client stood trial, but that was not the situation in Konstantinides and is certainly not the case here. Accordingly, to obtain relief, defendant must demonstrate at a hearing on his 440.10 application that “the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest, or that the conflict operated on the representation” … . People v Payton, 232, CtApp 12-12-13