Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alexander B. Jeong, J.), rendered May 13, 2010.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, after a non-jury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree (two counts), menacing in the third degree (two counts), attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree, harassment in the second degree (two counts), and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant was convicted, following a non-jury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree (two counts) (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00), menacing in the third degree (two counts) (Penal Law § 120.15), attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 145.00), harassment in the second degree (two counts) (Penal Law § 240.26), and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.01), resulting from an incident occurring during the afternoon of October 27, 2008 on a street outside a Brooklyn locksmith supply store. The People presented evidence that defendant had been a partner with the complainants in a locksmith business. The partnership, to the dismay of defendant, had broken up several months earlier. The complainants subsequently formed their own locksmith business. On October 27, 2008, defendant and a co-defendant approached the complainants, who were in the process of placing merchandise in a car after purchasing locksmith supplies. Defendant punched one of the complainants, and the co-defendant repeatedly hit the other complainant on the head with a large, heavy flashlight. The complainants sustained injuries which required treatment at a hospital.
Defendant and the co-defendant were represented by the same attorney throughout the proceedings. On appeal, defendant claims that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel based on the dual representation, because there was a conflict in the potential defenses of the two defendants. He further contends that he required the assistance of a Hebrew interpreter. It is undisputed that the trial court conducted an inquiry pursuant to People v Gomberg (38 NY2d 307 ) without a Hebrew interpreter present.
Defendant further asserts that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel because, among other things, his counsel failed to object to the filing of a second accusatory instrument; to offer in evidence a written statement made by the co-defendant to the police, which allegedly tended to exculpate defendant; to present evidence corroborating defendant's testimony that one of the complainants had previously threatened him, including a filed police report; to call witnesses to the incident who would testify in a favorable manner; to object to the prosecutor's leading and compound questions; to object to further direct examination of one of the complainants after a lunch break, after the prosecutor had indicated before the break that he had no further questions; to request a missing witness charge with respect to the non-testifying complainant; and to object to the admission into evidence of the medical records of the non-testifying complainant that contained a hearsay statement made at the hospital that he had been attacked with a flashlight.
Finally, defendant contends that the sentence imposed was excessive.
After an extensive Gomberg inquiry, defendant, in English, informed the trial court, on the record, that after a full discussion with counsel, he wanted counsel to continue to represent him, notwithstanding any potential conflict. Under these circumstances, the fact that defendant and the co-defendant were represented by the same attorney at the trial did not deprive defendant of the effective assistance of trial counsel (see People v Taylor, 52 AD3d 1327, 1328 ; People v Floyd, 45 AD3d 1457, 1459 ; People v Walker, 2 AD3d 1358, 1359 ; People v Smith, 306 AD2d 858, 860 ; People v Griffin, 249 AD2d 244, 245 ; People v Miller, 187 AD2d 930, 930-931 ). Moreover, defendant has failed to establish that there was a significant possibility that any conflict operated to adversely affect the defense or bore a substantial relationship to the representation (see People v Konstantinides, 14 NY3d 1, 10 ; People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 211 ; People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 657 ; People v Recupero, 73 NY2d 877, 878 ; People v Cordero, 78 AD3d 859 ; People v Floyd, 45 AD3d at 1460; People v Rocco, 229 AD2d 599, 600 ).
Defendant's claim that reversal is required because he did not have the services of a Hebrew interpreter when the court conducted the Gomberg inquiry, and his claim that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel because counsel did not request that the interpreter be present during the inquiry, are without merit. There was no evidence that defendant was unable to understand the proceedings or to communicate with his counsel due to a language barrier (see People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272, ...