conflict of interest violation in New York

2016Moreover, the in- court identifications of defendant by two of the victims, although equivocal, were “sufficient to satisfy the minimal requirements of the accomplice corroboration statute” (People v Jones, 85 NY2d 823, 825 ; see CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Billingsley, 128 AD3d 1520 , 1520-1521, lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Mar. 16, 2016]). -2- 417 KA 12-02303 We agree with defendant, however, that he is entitled to a new trial because the court violated his right to counsel when it failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his complaint regarding a conflict of interest with defense counsel.

2016Moreover, the in- court identifications of defendant by two of the victims, although equivocal, were “sufficient to satisfy the minimal requirements of the accomplice corroboration statute” (People v Jones, 85 NY2d 823, 825 ; see CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Billingsley, 128 AD3d 1520 , 1520-1521, lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Mar. 16, 2016]). -2- 417 KA 12-02303 We agree with defendant, however, that he is entitled to a new trial because the court violated his right to counsel when it failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his complaint regarding a conflict of interest with defense counsel.

2015Thus, a prior attorney-client relationship between a defendant and a prosecutor is insufficient to warrant disqualification of the prosecutor in the absence of actual prejudice (People v English, 215 AD2d 774 [2d Dept 1995], affd 88 NY2d 30 [1996] [defendant’s former attorney was hired by District Attorney’s office but was placed in a bureau other than the bureau handling the case and did not speak with the prosecutor assigned to the case]; People v Giroux, 122 AD3d 1063 [3d Dept 2014] [that District Attorney had represented defendant in prior, unrelated criminal and domestic relations matters

2015Thus, a prior attorney-client relationship between a defendant and a prosecutor is insufficient to warrant disqualification of the prosecutor in the absence of actual prejudice (People v English, 215 AD2d 774 [2d Dept 1995], affd 88 NY2d 30 [1996] [defendant’s former attorney was hired by District Attorney’s office but was placed in a bureau other than the bureau handling the case and did not speak with the prosecutor assigned to the case]; People v Giroux, 122 AD3d 1063 [3d Dept 2014] [that District Attorney had represented defendant in prior, unrelated criminal and domestic relations matters

2015Thus, a prior attorney-client relationship between a defendant and a prosecutor is insufficient to warrant disqualification of the prosecutor in the absence of actual prejudice (People v English, 215 AD2d 774 [2d Dept 1995], affd 88 NY2d 30 [1996] [defendant’s former attorney was hired by District Attorney’s office but was placed in a bureau other than the bureau handling the case and did not speak with the prosecutor assigned to the case]; People v Giroux, 122 AD3d 1063 [3d Dept 2014] [that District Attorney had represented defendant in prior, unrelated criminal and domestic relations matters

2010Additionally, respondent’s failure to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation of these matters and to respond to this motion demonstrates a willful noncompliance with a Committee investigation and threatens the public interest warranting an interim suspension pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) (see Matter of Kaplan, 49 AD3d 107 [2008]).

2009Matter of Gebo, 19 AD3d 932 [2005]; Matter of Farrington, 270 AD2d 710 [2000]; Matter of Orseck, 262 AD2d 862 [1999]); respondent has submitted affidavits from the clients stating that they had authorized the loans.

2009Matter of Gebo, 19 AD3d 932 [2005]; Matter of Farrington, 270 AD2d 710 [2000]; Matter of Orseck, 262 AD2d 862 [1999]); respondent has submitted affidavits from the clients stating that they had authorized the loans.

2009Matter of Gebo, 19 AD3d 932 [2005]; Matter of Farrington, 270 AD2d 710 [2000]; Matter of Orseck, 262 AD2d 862 [1999]); respondent has submitted affidavits from the clients stating that they had authorized the loans.

2006This issue must be resolved before consideration can be given to any of the various additional motions now before this court. 2 The dual representation by one firm of a driver and passenger in an automobile involved in a collision constitutes a conflict of interest in violation of the disciplinary rules (Quinn v Walsh, 18 AD3d 638 [2d Dept 2005]; Pessoni v Rabkin, 220 AD2d 732 [2d Dept 1995]) and warrants the removal of counsel from further dual representation of these clients.

2006This issue must be resolved before consideration can be given to any of the various additional motions now before this court. 2 The dual representation by one firm of a driver and passenger in an automobile involved in a collision constitutes a conflict of interest in violation of the disciplinary rules (Quinn v Walsh, 18 AD3d 638 [2d Dept 2005]; Pessoni v Rabkin, 220 AD2d 732 [2d Dept 1995]) and warrants the removal of counsel from further dual representation of these clients.

2006(Sidor v Zuhoski, 261 AD2d 529 [2d Dept 1999].) Indeed the dual representation mandates the disqualification of counsel in regard to his continuing representation of either of these plaintiffs since such continued representation would necessarily result in a violation of the firm’s fiduciary obligations to preserve client confidentiality and vigor ously represent the clients’ interests.

1997"Determinations of the trial court regarding credibility and the weight of evidence are to be afforded great weight on review” (Vail-Beserini v Beserini, 237 AD2d 658, 661 ).

1994Unlike the petitioner in our recent decision in Matter of Hancox v Bress ( 208 AD2d 1031 ), petitioner here is employed by the very division of OSC that is responsible for auditing the City of Buffalo and the Authority.

1980In support thereof, they cite Matter of Tuxedo Conservation & Taxpayers Assn. v Town Board of Town of Tuxedo ( 96 Misc 2d 1 ).