You are here: / / THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION...
, ,

THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial judge should have granted the People’s application to relieve defense counsel. Defense counsel had interviewed a prosecution witness alone. During the interview the witness had recanted his identification of the defendant as the shooter. Defendant wanted defense counsel to continue representing him but did not waive the conflict:

​

… [D]efense counsel’s actions of interviewing the prosecution’s main witness alone and being the only person who could testify to the witness’s recantation of his identification of the defendant as a shooter created an actual conflict of interest. Defense counsel was faced with the choice of testifying on behalf of his client, which would result in his disqualification, or not presenting evidence of an exculpatory statement … . Under the circumstances, especially in light of the defendant’s refusal to waive any conflict, the County Court erred in denying the People’s application to relieve defense counsel. People v Lawrence, 2017 NY Slip Op 08538, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, , THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
FORMAL ADMISSIONS, INFORMAL ADMISSIONS AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A MEETING OF THE MINDS AND WHETHER WRITINGS, INCLUDING AN EMAIL, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
BECAUSE THE B MISDEMEANOR CARRIES DEPORTATION AS A POTENTIAL PENALTY, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PROHIBIT T-SHIRTS MEMORIALIZING THE VICTIM AND THREE UNPRESERVED INSTANCES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WERE HARMLESS ERRORS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL.
EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR 2ND DEPT.
POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY, DEFENDANT THEREFORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF MITIGATION (SECOND DEPT).
In a Case Consolidated with the Case Summarized Immediately Above, Defendant Was Entitled to Summary Judgment After Demonstrating None of the Three Theories of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Applied—Because the Facts Are Not Discussed, It Is Not Clear Why All Three Potential Theories Were Addressed in this Action But Only One Needed to Be Addressed in the Other (To Be Safe, Address All Three?)
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN... FIRE DISTRICT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION...