In People v. Nevitt, 209 AD2d 341 (1st Dept 1994), app denied, 85 NY2d 864 (1995) the discharge of the Defendant's fourth attorney was held proper "because defendant's case had been pending for over a year, and counsel indicated that he would not be able to try the case for several months".Summary of this case from People v. Jones
November 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.).
Where defendant conceded that he had been involved in prior "run-ins" with the court, and that he did not intend to "sit back and just let [his] life just go down the drain," it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to exclude defendant from sidebar conferences with potential jurors during voir dire (cf., People v. Rosen, 81 N.Y.2d 237). Standby counsel did not unduly interfere with defendant's right to try his case (McKaskle v Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168), since he had conferred with defendant and had obtained defendant's consent prior to challenging any of the jurors, and defendant failed to challenge any part of counsel's representation during the trial although he had been provided with daily copy of the proceedings. Nor does defendant claim that he was excluded from any material part of the trial. In any event, this proceeding preceded People v. Sloan ( 79 N.Y.2d 386) and People v. Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247).
Defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial. At least 74 of the 208 days challenged by defendant, including the periods from December 1, 1987 through January 6, 1988, and January 11, 1988 through February 8, 1988, were excludable since they were adjournments requested by defense counsel (People v Worley, 66 N.Y.2d 523).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.