People v. Nelson

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Citation: People v. Nelson, 860 N.E.2d 56, 7 N.Y.3d 883, 826 N.Y.S.2d 593 (N.Y. 2006)
• Decision Date: 20 November 2006
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leighton NELSON, Appellant.

860 N.E.2d 56

7 N.Y.3d 883

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leighton NELSON, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

November 20, 2006.

Legal Aid Society, New York City (Lawrence T. Hausman of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Richard L. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to substitute counsel, made just prior to jury selection, constituted a proper exercise of discretion (People v. Linares, 2 N.Y.3d 507, 780 N.Y.S.2d 529, 813 N.E.2d 609 [2004]). Although the court initially rejected defendant's application without inquiry, it thereafter allowed defendant to voice his concerns about defense counsel. Nor did defense counsel's comments to the court defending his performance create a conflict of interest requiring the court to appoint new counsel (see generally People v. Quintana, 15 A.D.3d 299, 790 N.Y.S.2d 438 [1st Dept. 2005], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 856, 797 N.Y.S.2d 430, 830 N.E.2d 329 [2005]; People v. Silva, 15 A.D.3d 263, 790 N.Y.S.2d 436 [1st Dept.2005], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 857, 797 N.Y.S.2d 431, 830 N.E.2d 330 [2005]). Therefore, on the record before us, we cannot say that court abused its discretion in finding that the defendant did not establish good cause for such relief (see People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 404 N.Y.S.2d 588, 375 N.E.2d 768 [1978]).

Defendant's further contention that the court erred in defining the elements of the crime during its preliminary instructions was not preserved for our review (see People v. Brown, 7 N.Y.3d 880, 826 N.Y.S.2d 595, 860 N.E.2d 55 [2006] [decided today]).

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH and PIGOTT concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal (22 NYCRR 500.11), order...