You are here: / / DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH HIS ATTORNEY; THE JUDGE DENIED REQUESTS...
, ,

DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH HIS ATTORNEY; THE JUDGE DENIED REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s right to counsel had not been adequately protected and returned the case to pre-suppression-hearing status. Defendant refused to speak with his attorney and the judge, despite defendant’s presence in the courtroom, never discussed the issue with the defendant before denying a request to assign new counsel:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s right to counsel was not adequately protected. The defendant’s request for new counsel, made through assigned counsel, contained serious factual allegations concerning the defendant’s complaints about his assigned counsel and the breakdown of communications between assigned counsel and the defendant … . Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court failed to meet its ongoing duty to make inquiries to determine whether there was good cause for the requested substitution by denying the request without speaking directly with the defendant … . Thus, reversal is warranted. Further, on the record presented, the matter should be restored to pre-suppression-hearing status. Accordingly, we vacate the court’s suppression determination and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment. People v English, 2022 NY Slip Op 00189, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

You might also like
THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR LOST PROFITS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “LOST PROFITS” AS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS WAS ENTERED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall/Therefore, There Was an Insufficient Showing of a Connection Between Alleged Building Code Violations and the Fall
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) TOOK AND ADVOCATED POSITIONS WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN; NEW CUSTODY HEARING ORDERED WITH A NEW AFC (SECOND DEPT).
Teacher Had Not Acquired “Tenure by Estoppel”
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD BREACHED DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, TERMINATED THE GUARDIANSHIP OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED... A DEFENSE WITNESS WHO WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THAT A KEY PROSECUTION WITNESS HAD...