From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fryar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1993
198 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

November 8, 1993

Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that his conviction should be reversed because of a conflict of interest in the Public Defender's office representing both the defendant and his codefendant. We disagree. Joint representation is not per se forbidden, and a plea of guilty will be vacated only where "the defendant demonstrates that a significant possibility of a conflict of interest existed bearing a substantial relationship to the conduct of the defense" (People v Recupero, 73 N.Y.2d 877, 879). The defendant has failed to meet this burden, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the plea was induced by any consideration other than the defendant's best interests (see, People v Recupero, supra, at 879). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Fryar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1993
198 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Fryar

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. OCTAVIUS F. FRYAR…

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

Date published: Nov 8, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
603 N.Y.S.2d 56

Citing Cases

People v. Rowe

The defendant failed to sustain this burden, and nothing in the record suggests that his plea was induced by…

People v. Estrella

Accordingly, there is no basis to vacate defendants' pleas. People v Fryar, 198 AD2d 298 (2nd Dept 1993);…