You are here: / / HERE THERE WAS NO VALID REASON TO DENY DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT...
, , ,

HERE THERE WAS NO VALID REASON TO DENY DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s request to represent himself should have been granted:

The court deprived defendant of his constitutional right to self-representation when it denied defendant’s motion to proceed pro se despite defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. A defendant may invoke the right to self-representation where “(1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues” … . Here, defendant made a timely and unequivocal request to represent himself, and during an extensive inquiry, at which time the court repeatedly warned defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se, defendant affirmed that he understood the risks and insisted on representing himself at trial … . Defendant’s lack of familiarity with the law was not a proper basis for the denial of his motion … . Further, nothing in the record indicates that defendant’s motion was calculated to undermine or delay the progress of the trial— indeed, the court determined that defendant was not malingering—and defendant’s purported “outbursts” during two prior pretrial video conferences did not suggest an intent to disrupt the proceedings … . People v Ivezic, 2024 NY Slip Op 02785, First Dept 5-21-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s lack of knowledge of the law is not a valid reason for denying defendant’s request to represent himself at trial.

 

You might also like
THE RECORDING AND DISCLOSURE OF INMATE PHONE CALLS DO NOT VIOLATE THE INMATES’ RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION ON THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT INQUIRING ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Hearsay Evidence Can Be Considered in Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion As Long As It Is Not the Only Evidence​
BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WAS DUE TO DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH THE PROPER PROTECTIVE DEVICES PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THE DISSENT DISAGREED; A STACK OF CONCRETE BOARDS FELL OFF A TRUCK ONTO PLAINTIFF WHEN THE SKIDS UNDER THE BOARDS BROKE (FIRST DEPT).
ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST 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

THE DA HANDLING THE APPEAL WAS A LAW CLERK TO THE JUDGE WHO PRESIDED OVER THE... CITY RETIREES THREATENED WITH ELIMINATION OF THEIR EXISTING HEALTH INSURANCE...