Court Opinion

ID: 9837296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:29:35.130287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:24.356855
License: Public Domain

*1628Green and Martoche, JJ. (dissenting in part).
We respectfully dissent in part. We agree with the majority except insofar as the majority concludes that section C (4) under the “Assignment by Court and Client Eligibility” heading of the assigned counsel plan established by defendant Onondaga County Bar Association Assigned Counsel Program, Inc., incorrectly sued as the Assigned Counsel Program, Inc. (hereafter, ACP Plan), is valid (see Roulan v County of Onondaga, 90 AD3d 1617 [2011, Green and Martoche, JJ., dissenting]). We therefore would further modify the order by declaring that section C (4) under the “Assignment by Court and Client Eligibility” heading of the ACP Plan is invalid. Present — Scudder, PJ., Smith, Green, Gorski and Martoche, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 33031(U).]