Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2021However, in such a situation, a "court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance" ( People v McCullough , 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011]; see People v Tucker , 139 AD3d 1399 [2016]; People v Smith , 25 AD3d 573 ; People v Brown , 305 AD2d 422 [2003]). 2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N | 4 | 6 |
People v. McCulloughgreen2 sentences2025Further, the court made no serious inquiry into defendant's civil case against defense counsel, and we conclude that, "although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a [civil case] against [their] attorney be assigned new counsel, the court was required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel could continue to represent defendant in light of the [civil suit]" ( People v McCullough , 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see Tucker , 139 AD3d at 1400 ). "[H]ad the court conducted that inquiry, it might well have determined that, de 2021However, in such a situation, a "court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance" ( People v McCullough , 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011]; see People v Tucker , 139 AD3d 1399 [2016]; People v Smith , 25 AD3d 573 ; People v Brown , 305 AD2d 422 [2003]). | 4 | 5 |
People v. Tuckergreen2 sentences2025Further, the court made no serious inquiry into defendant's civil case against defense counsel, and we conclude that, "although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a [civil case] against [their] attorney be assigned new counsel, the court was required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel could continue to represent defendant in light of the [civil suit]" ( People v McCullough , 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see Tucker , 139 AD3d at 1400 ). "[H]ad the court conducted that inquiry, it might well have determined that, de 2025Further, the court made no serious inquiry into defendant's civil case against defense counsel, and we conclude that, "although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a [civil case] against [their] attorney be assigned new counsel, the court was required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel could continue to represent defendant in light of the [civil suit]" ( People v McCullough , 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see Tucker , 139 AD3d at 1400 ). "[H]ad the court conducted that inquiry, it might well have determined that, de | 3 | 4 |
People v. Sidesgreen2 sentences2025The court could not, however, summarily dismiss the request ( see Sides , 75 NY2d at 825 ; Darwish , 195 AD3d at 1517-1518 ). 2016Moreover, “where potential conflict is acknowledged by counsel’s admission of a breakdown in trust and communication, the trial court is obligated to make a minimal inquiry” (People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 101 [2010]; see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2021However, in such a situation, a "court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance" ( People v McCullough , 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011]; see People v Tucker , 139 AD3d 1399 [2016]; People v Smith , 25 AD3d 573 ; People v Brown , 305 AD2d 422 [2003]). 2016Defendant subsequently confirmed that he was requesting new assigned counsel and informed the court that he had filed a grievance against defense counsel resulting in a conflict of interest. “[Although there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance” (People v McCullough, 83 AD3d 1438, 1440 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011]; see People v Smith, 25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006], lv denied 6 N | 3 | 4 |
People v. Portogreen2 sentences2016Moreover, “where potential conflict is acknowledged by counsel’s admission of a breakdown in trust and communication, the trial court is obligated to make a minimal inquiry” (People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 101 [2010]; see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]). 2016Moreover, “where potential conflict is acknowledged by counsel’s admission of a breakdown in trust and communication, the trial court is obligated to make a minimal inquiry” (People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 101 [2010]; see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824-825 [1990]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Middletongreen1 sentence2018Here, we agree with defendant that the court should have "made at least some minimal inquiry in light of defense counsel's statement that the defendant had filed a grievance against him," in order to determine whether defense counsel was properly able to continue to represent defendant ( People v Middleton , 153 AD3d 937, 939 [2d Dept 2017]; see People v Dodson , 30 NY3d 1041, 1042 [2017]; People v Smith , 30 NY3d 1043, 1043-1044 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dodsongreen1 sentence2018Here, we agree with defendant that the court should have "made at least some minimal inquiry in light of defense counsel's statement that the defendant had filed a grievance against him," in order to determine whether defense counsel was properly able to continue to represent defendant ( People v Middleton , 153 AD3d 937, 939 [2d Dept 2017]; see People v Dodson , 30 NY3d 1041, 1042 [2017]; People v Smith , 30 NY3d 1043, 1043-1044 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence2018Here, we agree with defendant that the court should have "made at least some minimal inquiry in light of defense counsel's statement that the defendant had filed a grievance against him," in order to determine whether defense counsel was properly able to continue to represent defendant ( People v Middleton , 153 AD3d 937, 939 [2d Dept 2017]; see People v Dodson , 30 NY3d 1041, 1042 [2017]; People v Smith , 30 NY3d 1043, 1043-1044 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Darwish
green
1 sentence2025The court could not, however, summarily dismiss the request ( see Sides , 75 NY2d at 825 ; Darwish , 195 AD3d at 1517-1518 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.