Opinion
July 13, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.).
Defendant moved to vacate the judgment against him, alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Among the contentions advanced were that, due to a payment dispute, counsel neglected to investigate whether five persons arrested with defendant, whose names and addresses were available in police records, would have exonerated him of any involvement in the possession of narcotics. It was also alleged that trial counsel refused to engage in plea bargaining, rejecting plea offers in the absence of consultation with, and knowledge of, defendant.
A defendant's right to effective representation includes the assistance of an attorney who has undertaken an adequate investigation of both the law and the facts (People v Gega, 69 A.D.2d 772). In addition, the failure to convey accurate information regarding plea negotiations is a factor which will support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel (People v Dell, 60 A.D.2d 18). However, the trial court denied defendant's coram nobis motion without conducting a hearing into the alleged omissions by his attorney. On this appeal, the People agree that a hearing is required on these issues. We therefore remand for a hearing at which testimony can be received from counsel regarding the basis for his actions at trial.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.