You are here: / / Fact that Prosecutor Had Represented the Defendant in the Past Did Not...
,

Fact that Prosecutor Had Represented the Defendant in the Past Did Not Require Disqualification—No Substantial Risk of an Abuse of Confidence

The Third Department determined that the fact that the District Attorney had represented the defendant 16 years before did not require disqualification:

Ordinarily, “[a] public prosecutor should be removed only to protect a defendant from actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence” … . Here, the fact that the District Attorney may have previously represented defendant in prior, unrelated criminal matters, without more, does not require his disqualification … . Further, although the District Attorney sought to impeach defendant using prior contempt convictions arising from marital problems that defendant alleges he had discussed with the District Attorney, County Court’s refusal to allow any inquiry into the underlying facts of these convictions eliminated any possible avenue by which the District Attorney might have utilized any confidential information that he may have acquired … . As 16 years had passed since any such alleged confidences had been shared, the passage of time had also diminished the risk of prejudice … . As defendant did not demonstrate a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence or any actual prejudice, we find no error in County Court’s determination … . People v Giroux, 2014 NY Slip Op 08060, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

You might also like
DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED.
Family Court Improperly Delegated Its Responsibility to Set the Terms of Father’s Supervised Visitation
BECAUSE THE GAS WELL TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED MAY NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION DID NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED HE WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER, A VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHICH DEPRIVED HIM OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE DESIGNATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Separation and Modification Agreements Did Not Comply with the Child Support Standards Act
ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS, ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE DETERMINATION PETITIONER-INMATE WAS GUILTY OF “CREATING A DISTURBANCE” (THIRD DEPT).
No Employer-Employee Relationship—Agency Places Waiters and Bartenders with Clients for Catered Functions

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

Complaint Against Highest Bidder on Real Property Which Subsequently Refused... Fabricated Checks Using Defendant’s Name and Signature Were Not “Forged...