PEOPLE v. BAEZ (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered January 19, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel due to the existence of an alleged conflict of interest.   A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest must do more than show that the defense counsel had a potential conflict of interest.   To prevail, the defendant must establish that “ ‘the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest,’ or that the conflict ‘operated on’ counsel's representation” (People v. Longtin, 92 N.Y.2d 640, 644, 684 N.Y.S.2d 463, 707 N.E.2d 418, cert. denied 526 U.S. 1114, 119 S.Ct. 1760, 143 L.Ed.2d 791, quoting People v. Alicea, 61 N.Y.2d 23, 31, 471 N.Y.S.2d 68, 459 N.E.2d 177;  see People v. Abar, 99 N.Y.2d 406, 411, 757 N.Y.S.2d 219, 786 N.E.2d 1255;  People v. Smart, 96 N.Y.2d 793, 726 N.Y.S.2d 343, 750 N.E.2d 45;  People v. Hall, 28 A.D.3d 678, 813 N.Y.S.2d 220).   The defendant failed to do so.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).