The court properly denied defendant's motion for a mistrial and appointment of new counsel made on the ground of conflict of interest. During trial, defendant's Legal Aid Society attorney learned that a person arrested for selling marijuana in close temporal and spatial proximity to the instant heroin sale, and allegedly resembling defendant, had been represented on his arrest by the Legal Aid Society as well, and argued that the alleged conflict impeded her efforts to attribute the instant sale to the other person. We find no conflict of interest (see,People v. Perez, 70 N.Y.2d 773), but that even if it were to be assumed that the situation constituted a conflict of interest, defendant has not established that the conflict adversely affected his attorney's performance (see, Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335; People v. Allen, 88 N.Y.2d 831; People v. Recupero, 73 N.Y.2d 877). The record establishes that notwithstanding the claimed conflict, counsel pursued a line of defense concerning the marijuana seller. Moreover, this line of defense was far-fetched in any event, given the evidence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.