People v. Lombardo

• Decision Date: 21 February 1984
• Parties: , 460 N.E.2d 1074 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph LOMBARDO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 589

472 N.Y.S.2d 589

61 N.Y.2d 97, 460 N.E.2d 1074

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph LOMBARDO, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 21, 1984.

Gustave H. Newman and Barbara L. Hartung, New York City, for appellant.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty. (Lawrence J. Schwarz and Anthony J. Girese, Asst. Dist. Attys., of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JONES, Judge.

Use of the terms "scheme or business of making or collecting usurious loans" in section 190.42 of the Penal Law does not render the statute unconstitutional under the principle of void-for-vagueness, and the evidence in this record was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction under the statute. Receipt of a note from one juror that she could not "render a fair and just verdict in accordance with the Court's instruction", without more, did not mandate declaration of a mistrial. Finally, although it was error for the trial court not to have satisfied itself by inquiry of defendant that he understood the risks of a potential conflict of interest on the part of his counsel which the prosecution called to the attention of the court before trial, defendant is not entitled to a reversal of his conviction in view of his failure to demonstrate that there existed a conflict of interest or at least the significant possibility thereof in the circumstances of the attorney's conduct of his defense.

Defendant was indicted for the crimes of criminal usury in the first degree (Penal Law, § 190.42--one count) and criminal usury in the second degree (Penal Law, § 190.40--four counts) arising out of a series of alleged usurious loans to one George Morgan in connection with his operation of the Italian-American Club of Franklin Square, County of Nassau.

At trial evidence was introduced to establish defendant's participation in four lending transactions: (1) on or about March 1, 1979 Morgan assumed a loan from defendant for some $4,000 for approximately 52 weeks with interest at 104% per annum; (2) at or about the same time Morgan assumed another loan from defendant for approximately $2,000 for about 52 weeks with interest at 182% per annum; (3) on or about August 1, 1979 Morgan obtained another loan from defendant for approximately $1,500 for approximately 32 weeks with interest at 156% per annum; and (4) on or about November 1, 1979 Morgan obtained a fourth loan from defendant for approximately $5,000 for about 19 weeks with interest at 104% per annum. The jury found defendant guilty on all five counts charged. On from the ensuing judgment of conviction the Appellate Division, 92 A.D.2d 923, 460 N.Y.S.2d 406, unanimously affirmed, without opinion. Defendant's appeal is now before us by permission of a Judge of our court.

Defendant urges four grounds for reversal; two relate to his conviction on all five counts and two relate only to his conviction of criminal usury in the first degree.

Prior to trial the prosecution moved to disqualify defendant's trial counsel on the ground that his prior representation of George Morgan, who would be the People's chief witness, created an impermissible conflict of interest. The attorney had represented Morgan in the period between September, 1979 and early 1980 on various criminal charges. In January, 1980, without the knowledge of the attorney, Morgan agreed to co-operate with the law enforcement authorities in their investigation of defendant and thereafter became an undisclosed informer against him. Defendant's attorney opposed the motion for disqualification, urging that there existed no disqualifying conflict of interest. He agreed, however, that a hearing should be held pursuant to our decision in People v. Gomberg, 38 N.Y.2d 307, 379 N.Y.S.2d 769, 342 N.E.2d 550 "to determine whether the defendant will consent to any alleged conflict of interest, whether he insists upon my representation of him, and whether he will waive any Sixth Amendment claims he might have." Without hearing or explanation the trial court denied the prosecution's motion, and the attorney continued as defendant's trial counsel. We agree with defendant's appellate counsel that it was error on the part of the trial court not to have inquired of defendant to ascertain, on the record, whether he had an awareness of the potential risks involved in his continued representation by the attorney and had knowingly chosen to continue such representation. Although not presenting the circumstance of a joint trial of codefendants represented by the same counsel, this was an instance in which the principles of People v. Gomberg, 38 N.Y.2d 307, 379 N.Y.S.2d 769, 342 N.E.2d 550, supra and People v. Macerola, 47 N.Y.2d 257, 417 N.Y.S.2d 908, 391 N.E.2d 990 are applicable. There was a potential conflict of interest and that fact was brought to the attention of the trial court at the outset of the trial (contrast People v. Alicea, 61 N.Y.2d 23, 471 N.Y.S.2d 68, 459 N.E.2d 177).

A more troublesome question might be whether defendant has established his right to a reversal of his conviction in consequence of the error of the trial court. We conclude, however, that defendant has not demonstrated "that a conflict of interest, or at least the significant possibility thereof, did exist" in the circumstances disclosed in the record in this case, and in the absence of such demonstration defendant is not entitled to a reversal of his conviction (People v. Macerola, 47 N.Y.2d 257, 264, 417 N.Y.S.2d 908, 391 N.E.2d 990, supra ). Defendant's attorney concluded, whether rightly or wrongly, that he was released from any continuing obligation of confidentiality to Morgan in consequence of Morgan's waiver of the attorney-client privilege by his unrestricted co-operation with the prosecution. This conclusion eliminated any significant possibility that the conduct of the defense would be affected by the attorney's prior representation of Morgan, and scrutiny of the attorney's searching cross-examination of Morgan on defendant's trial confirms that the attorney conducted the defense on the operational premise that he no longer owed any professional obligation to Morgan. Accordingly, although there was error on the part of the trial court, defendant is not entitled to a reversal of his convictions in consequence thereof.

Defendant's second contention with respect to all counts of his conviction arises out of a note sent by juror number 11 to the Trial Judge during the course of the jury deliberations. The note read "Your Honor, at this point of deliberation, I find that I cannot render a fair and a just verdict in accordance with the Court's instruction". After the court informed the prosecution and the defense of the fact and content of the note, counsel for the People suggested that the entire jury be recalled and recharged, or in the alternative that the court explore the problem further with juror number 11. Defense counsel did not join in either suggestion, but instead pressed a motion for a mistrial, stating that if the juror were discharged the defense would not consent to the substitution of an alternate juror (CPL 270.35). The...