You are here: / Attorneys
, , , ,

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had adequately pled that the defendant law firm was equitably estopped from arguing an assignment, which was drawn up by the law firm, did not assign to plaintiff the right to bring a malpractice action against the law firm. The law firm had missed a deadline. Although the assignment could not be interpreted to include the malpractice claim, the equitable estoppel doctrine could be applied to prohibit the law firm from arguing the issue:

The motion court correctly found that the subject assignment, which merely transferred the assignor’s “entire right, title and interest in and to the [call] option contained in Paragraph 8 of” another contract, did not explicitly assign tort claims … . The assignment is not ambiguous; even if it were (and if we therefore considered parol evidence), an unexpressed understanding does not suffice … .

However, accepting plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to defendants’ motion as true, we find that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that defendants should be equitably estopped from arguing that the assignment did not assign tort claims. Contrary to defendants’ contention, estoppel can be based on silence as well as conduct … . Under these circumstances, where defendants drafted the assignment at a time when it represented … plaintiff, and that interpreting the assignment to exclude tort claims would mean that neither the assignor nor plaintiff, the assignee, would be able to sue defendants for malpractice for failing to exercise the call option in a timely manner, we find that the “special circumstances” exception to the privity requirement applies … . Deep Woods Holdings LLC v Pryor Cashman LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 08156, 1st Dept 12-6-16

NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/CONTRACT LAW (ASSIGNMENT, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/ASSIGNMENT (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)

,

THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.

The First Department determined defendant was not deprived of his right to call his codefendant as a witness. Although he strongly expressed his wish to do so, defense counsel properly exercised professional judgment in deciding against calling the witness:

“If defense counsel solely defers to a defendant, without exercising his or her professional judgment, on a decision that is for the attorney, not the accused, to make because it is not fundamental, the defendant is deprived of the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him or her” … . Whether to call a witness is a strategic decision to be made by defense counsel … . Moreover, counsel had a sound reason for not calling the codefendant, who, in his plea allocution, had implicated defendant in the drug sale. To the extent defendant is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, that claim is likewise without merit … . People v Sheard, 2016 NY Slip Op 08186, 1st Dept 12-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL, THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL.

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to hearing on his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction. Defendant alleged he was erroneously told he would not be deported if he pled guilty to a drug sale, but could be deported if convicted after trial:

This case presents factual issues requiring a hearing into whether defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel under People v McDonald (1 NY3d 109 [2003]) by way of erroneous and prejudicial immigration advice. Defendant alleges that his attorney erroneously advised him that if he pleaded guilty to a drug sale count with a sentence of probation, he would not be subject to deportation, but if he refused the plea offer, proceeded to trial and lost, he would go to prison and then be deported. Defendant’s claim is corroborated, to some extent, by statements made to present counsel by the attorney who represented defendant at the time of the plea … . The standard “no other promises” disclaimer in defendant’s plea allocution does not, as a matter of law, defeat his claim of erroneous legal advice. This case warrants a hearing at which defendant may establish the advice he actually received regarding the deportation consequences of his plea. …

This case also warrants a hearing on the prejudice prong of defendant’s claim. Defendant made a sufficient showing to raise an issue of fact as to whether he could have rationally rejected the plea offer under all the circumstances of the case, including the serious consequences of deportation and his incentive to remain in the United States … . Further, defendant sufficiently alleges that if immigration consequences had been factored into the plea bargaining process, counsel might have been able to negotiate a different plea agreement that would not have resulted in automatic deportation. People v Santos, 2016 NY Slip Op 08169, 1st Dept 12-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/INEFFECTICE ASSISTANCE (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL)

,

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)

, ,

STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED.

The Second Department determined the statement in a summons with notice alleging a mortgage was obtained by fraud was protected by judicial-proceedings privilege:

Generally, statements made at all stages of a judicial proceeding in communications among the parties, witnesses, counsel, and the court are accorded an absolute privilege, as long as the statements may be considered in some way “pertinent” to the issue in the proceeding … . This privilege, or “immunity” … , applies to statements made in or out of court, on or off the record, and regardless of the motive with which they were made … .

The test of pertinency to the litigation is extremely liberal, so as to embrace anything that may possibly or plausibly be relevant or pertinent … . The purpose of the privilege is to allow the parties, witnesses, and attorneys in a litigation to communicate freely without fear of defamation litigation … . Weinstock v Sanders, 2016 NY Slip Op 07947, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

 

DEFAMATION (STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED)/IMMUNITY (DEFAMATION, STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED)

,

CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge did not use the right criteria in denying defendant’s request to represent himself:

County Court inquired into defendant’s background, emphasized the importance of having counsel represent him, cautioned against the dangers of representing himself and tested defendant’s skill as an advocate with several evidentiary questions. The issue, however, is not the extent of defendant’s legal knowledge, but his capacity to knowingly waive the right to counsel … . In denying the request, County Court essentially ruled that it was not in defendant’s best interest and that the application was untimely, without expressly addressing defendant’s capacity to waive his right to counsel. Since defendant’s request was made prior to the commencement of trial, it was unquestionably timely … . Moreover, we are satisfied that defendant, who informed the court that he had obtained his GED and engaged in paralegal studies for a year, and was described by the court as “bright” and “articulate,” competently, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to the counsel. People v Poulos, 2016 NY Slip Op 07879, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/PRO SE CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)

,

FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

The Third Department determined, under the facts, defendant’s counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress defendant’s statement, which was made after 26 hours of interrogation:

… “[C]ounsel had everything to gain and nothing to lose by moving to suppress the [oral statements]” … . This is not to say that counsel must always seek to suppress evidence, and we reiterate that counsel is not ineffective for failing to make meritless motions … . Under the circumstances of this case, however, had counsel taken steps to suppress statements from the interrogation, the potential upside would have been the exclusion of the inconsistent statements … . Another potential gain would have been a basis to exclude the seized physical evidence obtained by the search warrants inasmuch as these warrants were secured, in part, by information obtained from defendant’s interrogation … . Indeed, with respect to this physical evidence, counsel recognized that, by not seeking to suppress the physical evidence on which blood had been found, he had to explain the blood’s presence to the jury. He further admitted that the People’s case would have been weaker had this physical evidence been excluded. While we do not pass on whether counsel would have been ultimately successful in suppressing either defendant’s oral statements or the seized physical evidence, we do conclude that a colorable basis existed for seeking suppression. Given the potential benefit in doing so, we discern no strategic or legitimate reason to let any of this crucial evidence come in unabated at trial … . People v Zeh, 2016 NY Slip Op 07881, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)

,

CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL, TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, resolving two appeals stemming from the same incident, over a three-judge dissent in the “sentencing” appeal, affirmed the defendant’s conviction, finding that the concurrent/consecutive sentencing rules were properly applied, and the Alford plea was not tainted by erroneous information provided by defense counsel. Defendant, during the course of an armed robbery of several victims in a park, discharged a weapon, grazing one of the victims. Defendant was charged with robbery, attempted robbery and attempted first degree felony murder. The court noted that the Appellate Division here (4th Department) found that consecutive sentences for felony murder and the underlying felony could have been imposed (not the case here). while two other departments have held such sentences must be concurrent. The Court of Appeals did not address that issue because it was raised in a reply brief:

In People v Laureano, we explained that when “determining whether concurrent sentences are required, the sentencing court must first examine the statutory definitions of the crimes for which defendant has been convicted” (87 NY2d at 643). The court must then determine “whether the actus reus element is, by definition, the same for both offenses (under the first prong of the statute), or if the actus reus for one offense is, by definition, a material element of the second offense (under the second prong)” (id.). The court must focus on actus reus rather than mens rea “[b]ecause both prongs of Penal Law § 70.25 (2) refer to the ‘act or omission’ . . . that constitutes the offense” … .

If a defendant’s acts or omissions do not fit under either prong of the statute, “the People have satisfied their obligation of showing that concurrent sentences are not required” … . When there “is some overlap of the elements of multiple statutory offenses,” courts retain discretion to impose consecutive sentences “if the People can demonstrate that the acts or omissions committed by the defendant were separate and distinct acts” … , even “though they are part of a single transaction” … . * * *

We have not directly addressed whether the sentence on a first-degree felony murder charge must run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the underlying felony. At the time of defendant’s sentencing, the 4th Department had yet to address this issue, but the 2nd and 3rd Departments had, holding that a sentence for first-degree felony murder had to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the underlying felony … . However, when faced with the issue in this case, the 4th Department affirmed the sentencing court’s conclusion that the sentences could run consecutively. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that defense counsel’s advice to defendant, even if erroneous, rendered him ineffective … . People v Couser, 2016 NY Slip Op 07831, CtApp 11-22-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/SENTENCING (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/CONCURRENT SENTENCES (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/ATTORNEYS (TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/FELONY MURDER (TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

, ,

QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s statements in connection with a murder charge were made in violation of his right to counsel. A new trial was ordered. At the time defendant was questioned about a robbery and a murder (the “gas station shooting”), he was represented on a marijuana charge. The robbery and murder occurred at different times and places, but defendant allegedly was the getaway driver for both. The trial court ruled the statements related to the robbery were made in violation of defendant’s right to counsel but the statements related to the murder were admissible. The Second Department noted that it is statutorily prohibited from revisiting the trial court’s suppression of the robbery statements. Since the Second Department concluded that the robbery and murder interrogations were necessarily intertwined, the murder statements should have been suppressed:

The Court of Appeals has recognized two categories of cases in which the attachment of counsel on one crime may preclude the police from interrogating a suspect on the subject of another crime. In People v Cohen (90 NY2d 632), the Court of Appeals stated that “where the two criminal matters are so closely related transactionally, or in space or time, that questioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel[,] . . . interrogation on the unrepresented crime is prohibited even in the absence of direct questioning regarding the crime on which counsel had appeared” … . With respect to the second category, the Court of Appeals has stated that “a statement may be subject to suppression where impermissible questioning on a represented charge was, when viewed as an integrated whole, not fairly separable from otherwise permissible questioning on the unrepresented matter and was, in fact, purposely exploited to aid in securing inculpatory admissions on the [unrepresented matter]” … . * * *

In light of the determination that the defendant’s right to counsel was violated when he was questioned with regard to the robbery charges, we further find that his right to counsel was violated by questioning on the factually interwoven homicide matter. Indeed, the robbery and the murder cases were so closely related that questioning about the gas station shooting “would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding” the robbery … . People v Henry, 2016 NY Slip Op 07676, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not make an inquiry into his request to represent himself. Defendant’s request was made during jury selection and was summarily rejected as untimely:

The right to self-representation … is subject to several restrictions … . Thus, “[a] defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (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” … . When a defendant timely invokes the right to self-representation, “the trial court should conduct a thorough inquiry to determine whether the waiver was made intelligently and voluntarily” … .

Judged by these principles, we conclude that defendant’s right to self-representation was violated. Contrary to the trial court’s finding, defendant’s requests to proceed pro se, made during jury selection, were timely asserted … . People v Crespo, 2016 NY Slip Op 07396, 1st Dept 11-10-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL)

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