You are here: / Attorneys
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM’S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE’S REVENGE THEORY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant's counsel was not ineffective. Defendant was 15 when he stabbed the 12-year-old victim more than 20 times (the victim survived). The defendant claimed he blacked out and had no memory of the stabbing. The defense called an psychiatrist who testified defendant's mental condition, together with his use of marijuana, made it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to commit the crime. Defense counsel did not show the expert the photos of the victim's wounds and did not inform the expert of the prosecution's theory that the defendant considered the victim a “snitch” and attacked him for that reason:

Whatever the wisdom of counsel's strategy, we cannot say that it was inconsistent with the actions of a reasonably competent attorney. There is no evidence on this record of what information forensic experts ordinarily require in order to arrive at an expert conclusion, or what information the expert requested in this case. Nor is there any evidence of what information an attorney ordinarily would or should provide to such an expert, independently of the expert's request. Therefore, it is not clear that prevailing professional norms would have required counsel to provide the expert with photographs and hospital records of the victim's stab wounds or inform him of the prosecution's theory of the case … . People v Henderson, 2016 NY Slip Op 03649, CtApp 5-10-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM'S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE'S REVENGE THEORY)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM'S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE'S REVENGE THEORY)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM'S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE'S REVENGE THEORY)

,

COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not make an adequate inquiry into defendant's complaint about a conflict of interest with defense counsel:

… [T]he court violated [defendant's] right to counsel when it failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his complaint regarding a conflict of interest with defense counsel. Prior to commencement of a scheduled suppression hearing, defense counsel informed the court that, based on recent discussions, defendant wanted to request new counsel, and that there had been a breakdown in communication between defense counsel and defendant regarding the issues that they needed to address. Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. '[A]lthough there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” … . Moreover, “where potential conflict is acknowledged by counsel's admission of a breakdown in trust and communication, the trial court is obligated to make a minimal inquiry” … . People v Tucker, 2016 NY Slip Op 03637, 4th Dept 5-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED)

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant alleged his attorney wrongly told him there was no possibility defendant would be deported based upon the conviction:

In support of his motion, defendant, who is not a United States citizen, submitted an affidavit in which he asserted that his attorney advised him prior to the plea that “there is no way in the world” that he would be deported as a result of his plea because he was being sentenced to less than five years in prison. Defendant further asserted that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been properly advised of the deportation consequences of the plea. According to defendant, he was deported to Jamaica after serving his term of imprisonment.

As the Court of Appeals has held, an affirmative misstatement of the law regarding the deportation consequences of a plea may provide a basis for vacatur of the plea if it can be shown that the defendant was thereby prejudiced, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would not otherwise have pleaded guilty … . Here, we conclude that defendant's sworn assertions, if true, entitle him to relief and, because it cannot be said that his assertions are incredible as a matter of law, a hearing is required. We reject the People's contention that the court properly denied the motion because defendant failed to submit an affidavit from his former attorney corroborating his claim … . Where, as here, defendant's “application is adverse and hostile to his trial attorney,” it “is wasteful and unnecessary” to require the defendant to secure an affidavit from counsel, or to explain his failure to do so … . Moreover, contrary to the People's further contention, defendant's assertion that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been properly advised regarding deportation is sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether he was prejudiced by counsel's alleged error … . People v Bennett, 2016 NY Slip Op 03608, 4th Dept 5-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HIS COUNSEL PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION)

,

CODEFENDANT, WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE SAME FIRM; IN THIS SITUATION AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT IS AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS AND CONSENTS IS REQUIRED; MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant's codefendant, pursuant to a plea bargain, testified against the defendant. The attorney who represented the codefendant and defendant's counsel were members of the same law firm. This situation has the potential of depriving defendant of his right to effective counsel requiring an inquiry by the court to ensure defendant is aware of all the facts and consents:

“Absent inquiry by the court and consent by the defendant, an attorney may not represent a criminal defendant in a trial at which a star prosecution witness is a codefendant whose plea bargain—including the promise to testify against defendant—was negotiated by a partner in the same firm. In these circumstances defendant is denied his right to effective assistance of counsel” … . Thus, a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel where a member of defense counsel's law firm represents a witness who testifies against defendant at trial unless the court conducts a “Gomberg inquiry to ascertain that the facts had been disclosed to defendant and that he [or she] had made a reasoned decision whether to proceed to trial with his [or her] attorney” … . People v Jackson, 2016 NY Slip Op 03317, 4th Dept 4-29-16


,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING THE TRIAL, REQUESTED TO BE RELIEVED FROM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The First Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined defendant should have been present when defense counsel explained his concerns about defendant to the judge and asked to be relieved from representing the defendant. The request was denied:

In conducting a colloquy on defense counsel's request to be relieved, the court erred in failing to permit defendant to provide any input, or to even be present. At least by the time that the substance of counsel's ex parte application became clear, defendant should have been included in the proceeding.

…[T]his proceeding was an “ancillary proceeding[] [at which] he . . . may have [had] something valuable to contribute” … , and thus that his exclusion from it was error. While defendant may not have been able to justify counsel's removal, we cannot say that the “new matter” brought to light at the ex parte proceeding — where counsel revealed the content of a privileged communication with the court, and expressed the belief that defendant's criticisms of his performance were insincere attempts to sow error in the record — implicated “no potential for meaningful input from [] defendant” … on the subject of whether continued representation by counsel was appropriate.

The proceeding also implicated the court's obligation to make a “minimal inquiry” regarding whether the new facts justified substitution of counsel… . People v Moya, 2016 NY Slip Op 03241, 1st Dept 4-28-16


, ,

ATTORNEY WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY PROSECUTED MOTHER FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MOTHER’S CHILDREN IN A CUSTODY MATTER; IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE MOTHER WAS PREJUDICED BY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION MOTION TO VACATE CUSTODY STIPULATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED.

The Third Department determined Family Court should not have allowed an attorney who, as an assistant District Attorney, prosecuted mother for endangering the welfare of a child, to serve as the children's attorney in a custody matter. Mother moved to vacate the custody stipulation, in part based upon the attorney's (Bielicki's) conflict of interest. The fact that Bielicki should not have been appointed, in the absence of evidence of actual prejudice to mother from the use of confidential information, did not warrant vacation of the stipulation:

The mother … argues that Bielicki's representation of the children violated Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 1.11 (c), which provides that “a lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person, acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee, may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person.” The rule defines confidential governmental information as “information that has been obtained under governmental authority and that, at the time this Rule is applied, the government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose, and that is not otherwise available to the public” … . * * *

Bielicki's assignment as attorney for the children in this matter was contrary to the standards set forth in Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 1.11 (c) — and, for that reason, Family Court … should not have permitted Bielicki to serve in that capacity — such error, without more, does not warrant vacatur of the stipulation and order. Matter of Tina X. v John X., 2016 NY Slip Op 02874, 3rd Dept 4-14-16


DISQUALIFICATION OF ATTORNEY APPROPRIATE TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

In a dispute about easements used by property owners to gain access to their properties, the Third Department determined disqualification of an attorney based upon avoiding the appearance of impropriety was appropriate, even though the mandatory conflict-of-interest disqualification criteria may not have been met:

… [E]ven in instances where … disqualification is not mandatory, disqualification nonetheless may be warranted depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of a given case … . In this regard, “[i]t is well settled that an attorney must avoid not only the fact, but even the appearance, of representing conflicting interests” … . To that end, “[a]n attorney may not place himself [or herself] in a position where a conflicting interest may, even inadvertently, affect, or give the appearance of affecting, the obligations of the professional relationship” … . “The disqualification of an attorney is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the court” … , and the case law makes clear that “[a]ny doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”… . McCutchen v 3 Princesses & AP Trust Dated Feb. 3, 2004, 2016 NY Slip Op 02703, 3rd Dept 4-7-16


DEFENDANTS WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY BY PARTICIPATING IN THE LITIGATION FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

The Second Department determined the Brach defendants' motion to disqualify counsel for the plaintiff limited-liability-company (Goldberg) was properly denied. Plaintiff sued defendant Brach, a member of the company, alleging Brach violated his duties to the company. After more than two years and eight months of litigation, the Brach defendants moved to disqualify Goldberg, alleging a conflict of interest. The Brach defendants were aware of the alleged conflict from the beginning. Therefore the Brach defendants had waived any objection to Goldberg's representation. The Second Department explained the relevant law:

“Where a party seeks to disqualify counsel of an adversary in the context of ongoing litigation, courts consider when the challenged interests became materially adverse to determine if the party could have moved at an earlier time” … . If the party moving for disqualification knew or should have known of the facts underlying the alleged conflict of interest for a prolonged period before bringing the motion, that party may be found to have waived any objection to the other party's representation … . Further, where a motion to disqualify is brought in the middle of litigation where the moving party was aware of the alleged conflict of interest well before bringing the motion, it can be inferred that the motion was made to secure a tactical advantage … . Ike & Sam's Group, LLC v Brach, 2016 NY Slip Op 02620, 2nd Dept 4-6-16


, ,

DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, with a concurring opinion by Judge Pigott, rejected defendant’s challenge to the use at trial of recordings of his phone calls made from Rikers Island during pre-trial incarceration. Prosecutors routinely request recordings of nonprivileged inmate phone calls and pour through them for use at trial. The Court of Appeals did not condone the practice, and the concurring opinion laid out how access to the phone calls prejudices defendants who cannot make bail:

In order to properly address and frame defendant’s legal claims, we first clarify what defendant does not allege on this appeal. He does not allege that any conversations with his defense counsel were recorded and admitted at trial, or that the Department permits such monitoring. To the contrary, defendant recognizes that the Operations Order expressly prohibits the recording and monitoring of conversations with an inmate’s attorney. Nor does defendant assert that the intention of the City’s regulation or the Department’s Operations Order is to create and collect information strictly for use by the prosecution against a detainee at trial. Defendant candidly admits that the Department has a legitimate interest in recording and monitoring detainee telephone communications.

Defendant instead challenges what he describes as the Department’s practice of “automatic, unmonitored harvesting of intimate conversations of pre-trial inmates,” and the subsequent dissemination of the Department’s recordings to District Attorneys’ offices for use in criminal prosecutions. Defendant claims the practice violated his right to counsel, exceeds the scope of the Department’s regulatory authority, and was conducted without defendant’s consent. The claims are either without merit or unpreserved and therefore do not warrant reversal and a new trial. People v Johnson, 2016 NY Slip Op 02552, CtApp 4-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED)/INMATES (RECORDED PHONE CALLS, DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED)

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S DECISION TO FOREGO A REQUEST TO REOPEN THE SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED UPON TRIAL TESTIMONY WAS SUPPORTED BY A SOUND STRATEGIC REASON, COUNSEL WAS THEREFORE NOT INEFFECTIVE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined defense counsel's failure to request the reopening of the suppression hearing based upon trial testimony did not constitute ineffective assistance. The Appellate Division had previously reversed the trial court's suppression of defendant's statements. At trial the detective who took the statements from the defendant gave an account which differed from the detective's hearing testimony. The inconsistent testimony related to the second of the two statements made by the defendant during interrogation. In response to defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on ineffective-assistance grounds, the People provided an affidavit from defense counsel which explained the strategy underlying the decision to forego a request to reopen the suppression hearing. “… Counsel averred that he had believed that defendant's second statement would almost certainly be admitted into evidence at trial and that therefore he had focused on using the exculpatory preface of the first statement to cast doubt on the probative worth of defendant's more incriminating subsequent comments.” The court found the explanation of the defense strategy to be sound:

Defense counsel did not deprive defendant of the effective assistance of counsel when he decided not to move to reopen the suppression hearing … . Because the Appellate Division had rejected counsel's original arguments for suppression of the [second] statement prior to trial and cited a number of factors that remained extant throughout the proceedings in this case, counsel reasonably thought that the statement would be admitted into evidence regardless of any new developments, and instead of making what he sensibly thought was a longshot motion to reopen the hearing, he decided to use the exculpatory portion of defendant's first statement to undermine the credibility of the second statement and place it in context. People v Gray, 2016 NY Slip Op 02476, CtApp 3-31-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL'S DECISION TO FOREGO A REQUEST TO REOPEN THE SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED UPON TRIAL TESTIMONY WAS SUPPORTED BY A SOUND STRATEGIC REASON, COUNSEL WAS THEREFORE NOT INEFFECTIVE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL'S DECISION TO FOREGO A REQUEST TO REOPEN THE SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED UPON TRIAL TESTIMONY WAS SUPPORTED BY A SOUND STRATEGIC REASON, COUNSEL WAS THEREFORE NOT INEFFECTIVE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL'S DECISION TO FOREGO A REQUEST TO REOPEN THE SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED UPON TRIAL TESTIMONY WAS SUPPORTED BY A SOUND STRATEGIC REASON, COUNSEL WAS THEREFORE NOT INEFFECTIVE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL'S DECISION TO FOREGO A REQUEST TO REOPEN THE SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED UPON TRIAL TESTIMONY WAS SUPPORTED BY A SOUND STRATEGIC REASON, COUNSEL WAS THEREFORE NOT INEFFECTIVE)

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