People v. Gruttadauria

May 15, 2007
Versions:40 A.D.3d 879
836 N.Y.S.2d 272

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered April 6, 2004, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (three counts), attempted burglary in the second degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress statements made to law enforcement officials and identification testimony.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination of the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30, on which motion the defendant’s appellate counsel shall represent him, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The County Court, Suffolk County, shall file the new determination with all convenient speed.

Prior to sentencing, the defendant moved pro se to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel. The defense counsel submitted an affirmation in opposition to the motion, which was received and considered by the County Court in denying the motion. In the affirmation, defense counsel explained his performance on the record with references to matter dehors the record. The County Court, in denying the motion, referred to both the record and the defense counsel’s explanations based upon material dehors the record (cf. People v Lattimore, 5 AD3d 399, 400 [2004]).

The defense counsel, by taking a position adverse to his client, deprived the defendant of effective assistance of counsel with respect to the motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (see People v Coleman, 294 AD2d 843 [2002]). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a de novo determination of the motion, upon which the defendant shall be represented by the counsel representing him on this appeal.

At this time, we express no opinion as to the substantive merit of the defendant’s motion or whether the defendant’s motion requires an evidentiary hearing (see People v Coleman, 305 AD2d 1031 [2003]). Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

司法書士法人リーセット 東京都新宿区西新宿６－１５－１セントラルパークタワー・ラ・トゥール新宿４階 代表者　武中龍道 本件において、リーセットの広告が、あたかも依頼者の意向だけで和解金の提示額を変更させることができるかのような誤認を与える内容であり、認定司法書士としての品位を害するとして、広告の禁止と１か月の業務停止の処分が下されました。 過払い金請求の広告において、具体的な成功事例や「和解金の提示額を上げさせる」といった表現は、消費者の期待を煽る不適切なものと判断されることがあります。 特に、和解交渉は相手方（貸金業者）との合意が必要であり、司法書士の裁量だけでコントロールできるものではないため、リーセットの表現は事実に反するか、あるいは著しく誤認を招くものとされました。 本件処分は、認定司法書士の業務範囲を超えた活動や、不適切な集客手法に対する東京司法書士会の厳しい姿勢を反映したものです。 今後、同法人がどのように改善を行うかが注目されます。