You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER...
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT.

The Second Department, reversing the conviction, determined the defense attorney’s failure to move to sever the defendant’s trial from the co-defendant’s and request a missing witness charge constituted ineffective assistance. The need for severance became apparent during the trial when counsel for the co-defendant pursued a defense antagonistic to that of the defendant. The court noted the motion for severance can be made any time before the end of the trial when the defendant could not previously have been aware of the basis for it:

Where a defendant claims prejudice as a result of a joint trial because his defense is antagonistic to that of a codefendant, “severance is not required solely because of hostility between the parties, differences in their trial strategies or inconsistencies in their defenses” … . However, “severance is compelled where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer defendant’s guilt” … . Thus, severance should be granted where the defenses are not only antagonistic, but also mutually exclusive and irreconcilable … . Although a severance motion must generally be made before the commencement of trial … , CPL 255.20(3) permits a pretrial motion to be made and decided “at any time before the end of trial” when “the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously aware” of the basis for the motion. CPL 255.20(3) further provides that the court may, “in the interest of justice, and for good cause shown,” entertain and dispose of a pretrial motion “at any time before sentence.” People v Davydov, 2016 NY Slip Op 08090, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT)/SEVERANCE, MOTION FOR (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SEVER AT TRIAL AFTER AN ANTAGONISTIC DEFENSE WAS PURSUED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT)

You might also like
City Administrative Code Provision Requiring a Building Owner to Maintain and Be Responsible for the Safe Condition of a Building Is Not Specific Enough to Form the Basis of Negligence Cause of Action
THE NEWSPAPER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, INCLUDING RECORDS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS AND RECORDS CREATED BEFORE THE REPEAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-A, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NOT ALL REAR-END COLLISIONS ARE SOLELY THE FAULT OF THE REAR DRIVER; HERE PLAINTIFF, THE REAR DRIVER, RAISED CREDIBILITY ISSUES BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF IN THE POLICE REPORT AND AVERRING DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY WITHOUT USING A TURN SIGNAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for Determining Whether Relocation of Custodial Parent is in Best Interests of the Children Explained
THE COURT’S FAILURE TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT ON ONE INDICTMENT REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEAS TO THAT INDICTMENT AND ANOTHER INDICTMENT FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars Which Served Plaintiff’s Decedent, Even Though the Alcohol Served at the First Bar Would Have Metabolized by the Time of the Accident Had Plaintiff’s Decedent Not Continued to Drink at the Second Bar

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED... RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS...