Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), entered March 28, 2001, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3, to adjudicate rеspondent a juvenile delinquent, and (2) from an order of said court, entered January 14, 2002, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate the order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent.
On August 14, 2000 at approximately 4:00 p.m., respondent allegedly caused damage to a bicycle owned by John Anderson, which was resting against the exterior wall of Hudson High School in the City of Hudson, Columbia County. The estimated cost of repairing the bicycle was $100.12. As a result, respondent was charged with committing an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree. After a fact-finding hearing, Family Court adjudicated resрondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the care and custody of the Columbia County Commissioner of Social Services for a period of 12 months. Respondent appeals. While perfecting his аppeal, respondent moved, pursuant to CPL 440.10, to vacate the dispositional order on the grоund that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and was denied an impartial hearing. Family Court denied the motion and respondent appeals this order as well.
Respondent has not demonstrated to this Court that at the time of arraignment Clark knew that he would be employed by Family Court or that, even if he did know, such circumstancе presented any conflict whatsoever. Nor did he show that the case could not have been рroperly prepared and tried in accordance with the schedule set by the court at arrаignment. Under the circumstances, we find that respondent has failed to demonstrate either the existence of a conflict of interest or that the manner by which Clark represented respondent prejudiсed his case. “Although disqualification may be required where the claimed conflict of interest could have a direct affect on the representation, here there is no evidence of any such prejudice to [respondent]” (People v Abar,
Next, respondent argues that he received ineffective assistanсe of counsel from Lally at his hearing. Respondent claims that Lally failed to “evaluate witnesses,” “adequately interview [respondent] or others,” make discovery demands or file pretrial motions or seek information to impeach the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. The issue of Lully’s ineffective representation at the fact-finding hearing was raised before Family Court by virtue of respondent’s CPL artiсle 440 motion. By affidavits on that motion, respondent and his mother alleged the existence of potential witnesses whose testimony would háve impeached Anderson’s testimony and, therefore, provide a basis for an argument that Anderson in fact damaged his own bicycle. It is apparent that this information was brought tо Bally’s attention since he undertakes to examine Anderson along the lines suggested by respondent’s mothеr and he inexplicably abandons the fine of questioning without receiving an answer.
Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the lаw, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Columbia County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.