| People v Mahoney |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06712 [110 AD3d 923] |
| October 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ricky-Jo Mahoney, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, DutchessCounty (Greller, J.), rendered January 5, 2012, revoking a sentence of probationpreviously imposed by the same court (Hayes, J.), upon a finding that he violatedconditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment uponhis previous conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree.
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, "the court made a sufficient inquiry intodefendant's complaints concerning the alleged lack of communication between defendantand defense counsel. The court 'repeatedly allowed defendant to air his concerns aboutdefense counsel, and after listening to them reasonably concluded that defendant's vagueand generic objections had no merit or substance' " (People v Reese, 23 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2005], quoting People v Linares, 2 NY3d507, 511 [2004]). Also contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel at nopoint took a position adverse to the defendant's interests (cf. People v Vega, 88 AD3d1022, 1022-1023 [2011]). In sum, the defendant was not deprived of meaningfulrepresentation (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998];People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Lott andAustin, JJ., concur.