From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 29, 1994
207 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 29, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.).


Defendant's contention that the trial court's denial of his pro se application to substitute his attorney denied him his constitutional right to counsel and that the court would have granted the motion had it more carefully investigated his complaints, is unpreserved since he never moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (People v. Campo, 196 A.D.2d 720, 721, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 850), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the court made sufficient inquiry of defendant's allegations. Moreover, based on defendant's conclusory claims regarding counsel's inadequate performance, defense counsel's assertions to the contrary, and the entirety of the record, and the court's familiarity with the proceedings, the court properly found that defendant failed to demonstrate "good cause" warranting substitution (People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 29, 1994
207 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PATRICK ANDERSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Sep 29, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 960

Citing Cases

People v. Square

After sufficient inquiry and ample opportunity for defendant to be heard, the court properly exercised its…

People v. Davis

Were we to review it, we would find that defendant's erratic driving provided a reasonable basis for stopping…