People v. Lopez
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The trial court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant’s request for new counsel. No further investigation was required because his conclusory assertions did not suggest a serious possibility of irreconcilable conflict with defense counsel (see People v Stevenson, 36 AD3d 634 [2007]; People v Moore, 228 AD2d 622 [1996]). Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the prosecutor disclosed all relevant documents pursuant to People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]) and Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]), and defense counsel was in possession…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- People v. SuitteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- People v. RosarioNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
- People v. AshwalNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- People v. HalmNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- People v. JacksonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. AyusoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. CarrionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- People v. LuisiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. InfanteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.