Summary
In Ortiz, the Trial Judge did no more than advise the defendants in general terms that the joint representation by a single attorney presented the possibility of a conflict of interest during trial.
Summary of this case from People v. LloydOpinion
Argued January 3, 1980
Decided February 5, 1980
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, IVAN WARNER, J.
Louis G. Adolfsen and John A.K. Bradley for appellant.
Mario Merola, District Attorney (Daniel Taub and Alan D. Marrus of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order appealed from should be affirmed. The court specifically alerted defendant to the possibility that a conflict of interest might flow from joint representation of defendant and a codefendant by the same attorney, and informed defendant of his right to separate counsel. Despite this admonition, defendant insisted on continued joint representation. Having determined to persist in that course of action, defendant may not subsequently contend that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because of a possible conflict of interest arising from that joint representation (see People v Gomberg, 38 N.Y.2d 307; cf. People v Macerola, 47 N.Y.2d 257).
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.