People v. Wyatt

• Decision Date: 09 June 1988
• Citation: 530 N.Y.S.2d 460,140 Misc.2d 69
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Leola WYATT, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Stanley WYATT, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Maxine BROOKS, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Yvonne PATTERSON, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 460

530 N.Y.S.2d 460

140 Misc.2d 69

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Leola WYATT, Defendant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Stanley WYATT, Defendant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Maxine BROOKS, Defendant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Yvonne PATTERSON, Defendant.

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County.

June 9, 1988.

Dist. Atty. Paul Gentile by Alexander R. Cane, for the People.

Irving J. Panzer, New York City, for the Wyatts and another.

LOUIS B. YORK, Judge:

Defendants Leola and Stanley Wyatt were involved in an alleged altercation with defendants Maxine Brooks and Yvonne Patterson. Both parties were each assigned a different Assistant District Attorney (ADA) from the same trial bureau. On September 15, 1987, the complaints brought by the Wyatts against Brooks/Patterson were dismissed pursuant to a motion made by the ADA assigned to prosecute the complaints of Brooks/Patterson against the Wyatts.

By Decision and Order dated March 23, 1988 (York, J.), the Bronx District Attorney's Office was disqualified from prosecuting any of the above named defendants, due to the conflict of interest resulting in actual prejudice to the Wyatt defendants when the District Attorney's office moved to dismiss charges against the cross-complainants Brooks/Patterson. I vacated my previous order of dismissal of the Wyatts' complaint against Brooks/Patterson and ordered the complaints restored to the calendar. I held that the dismissal constituted an actual conflict of interest in addition to the inherent conflict of interest arising out of the District Attorney prosecuting both parties for a crime while their acts were at odds with each other; and the matter was referred to the Supreme Court for appointment of a special prosecutor. The Bronx District Attorney, by affirmation dated May 9, 1988, now moves for reargument.

The People in their motion assert that, "(t)he Bronx District Attorney was never afforded an opportunity to address the 'conflict of interest' rationale underpinning this court's decision, sua sponte, to grant the above relief." In reviewing all the papers involved in the prior motion I can reach no other conclusion except that the People were given ample opportunity to address this issue. The Wyatt attorney's affidavit dated November 10, 1987 very clearly indicates that one of the grounds for the relief requested arose out of a conflict of interest involving the District Attorney's office. It is stated at paragraphs 7, 8, and 9, the following:

7. That again, without belaboring the point I wish to emphasize the blatant conflict of interest on the part of A.D.A. JAMES M. PHILLIPS ESQ. who is the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting this action against the defendant LEOLA WYATT in arbitrarily dismissing Mrs. Wyatt's complaint against YVONNE PATTERSON and MAXINE BROOKS.

8. Upon information and belief A.D.A. JAMES M. PHILLIPS ESQ. has invested considerable time and energy in preparing his cases both against the defendant in the companion case STANLEY WYATT and against the defendant in this case, LEOLA WYATT. As has been made clear, it is most obvious, a basic element of LEOLA WYATT's defense in this action is the fact of her assault complaints against the said YVONNE PATTERSON and MAXINE BROOKS. It is patently clear that the prosecution of the complaint against LEOLA WYATT and the prosecution of LEOLA WYATT's complaint against YVONNE PATTERSON and MAXINE BROOKS entail directly conflicting interests on the part of a prosecutor. This is so obvious that when the matter appeared before this Court on August 17, 1987 while A.D.A. JAMES M. PHILLIPS, ESQ. continued to be the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the action against the defendant STANLEY WYATT and the action against this defendant LEOLA WYATT, another Assistant District Attorney, to wit, A.D.A. LEW GALDSTON, ESQ. was designated to represent the complaint of Mrs. Wyatt against the said YVONNE PATTERSON and MAXINE BROOKS as defendants. I respectfully submit to this Court that if it was indeed felt that assault complaints of LEOLA WYATT against YVONNE PATTERSON and MAXINE BROOKS should have been dismissed that this was a matter which should have been decided by and presented to Court by A.D.A LEW GLADSTON, ESQ. or any other Assistant District Attorney acting with him other than A.D.A. JAMES M. PHILLIPS, ESQ, who was already committed to the prosecution of the defendant herein and the defendant STANLEY WYATT in the companion case.

9. That in conclusion, the action of A.D.A. JAMES M. PHILLIPS, ESQ. in dismissing Mrs. Wyatt's complaint against YVONNE PATTERSON and MAXINE BROOKS as has been amply set forth in the companion motion, was unwarranted, constituted a direct conflict of interest on the part of A.D.A JAMES M....