The calendar and trial courts properly exercised their respective discretion in denying defendant's requests for assignment of new counsel. In each instance, defendant received a full opportunity to be heard, and his complaints simply expressed general disagreement with counsel over trial strategy and the applicable law, which was not good cause for a substitution of counsel, and which did not require a more extended inquiry (see e.g. People v Walton,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
PEOPLE v. SAMAD
39 A.D.3d 422 (2007)
835 N.Y.S.2d 99
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARTY SAMAD, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided April 26, 2007.
Decided April 26, 2007.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
