People v Campbell, Richard
Motion No: 2012-01787
Slip Opinion No: 2013 NY Slip Op 84226(U)
Decided on September 4, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M161744

E/sl

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.

RUTH C. BALKIN

THOMAS A. DICKERSON

JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

2012-01787

The People, etc., respondent,

v Richard Campbell, appellant.

(Ind. No. 2562/07)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant to recall and vacate a decision and order on motion of this Court dated May 9, 2013, which granted the respondent's motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 10, 2012, for failure to timely perfect.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged, and the appellant shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with this Court's rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellant, in the event that he and the codefendant Michael McLennon (Appellate Division Docket No. 2012-01786) retain the same counsel to prosecute their appeals, shall file with the Clerk of this Court a duly notarized affidavit setting forth the following information:

That he and his co-appellant have retained the same attorney to represent them on appeal; that he has discussed with this attorney the possibility that a conflict of interest could arise in connection with his joint representation; that he is satisfied at this point that no conflict exists; that if a conflict arises he would have the right to retain separate counsel; and that he understands that if this attorney continues to represent him and his co-appellant and his appeal is determined based on that joint representation, he could waive any claim that the dual representation constituted a conflict of interest.

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court